L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Rejecting evolution is showing absolute ignorance of science.
- Status
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
I remember a few years ago listening to a radio show with a scientist tell how he finally had to admit that the theory of evolution was false. He was a well known scientist that had been an proponent evolution for many years. He finally had to admit that nothing pointed to evolution.
In fact, so little evidence was there (evidence that was not fake, that is) that the evolutionists have had to come up with a new theory, within the theory of evolution. Do you know what it is called. It is called (and excuse the spelling) “puctuated equalibrium”. Since there was no evidence of anything actually evolving, they came up with the theory that goes like this: One day fish laid an agg. Out of the egg came a bird. Then one day a bird laid an egg, out of the egg came a dog, then one day a dog gave birth to a monkey, then the monkey gave birth to a man. See how it works? This theory (that also had no evidence) allowed the scientist to keep the theory of evolution even without any scientific evidence of it.
Evolution is a hoax. Don’t fall for it. Instead, read some books, or websites, that give you the other side of the story. Then you will see for yourself. Here’s a link to an article:
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K8EOT4IgohEJ:www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/earth-young-old1.htm+evolution+Robert+Sungenis&hl=en
Not so. Actually many scientists are finally giving up on the “theory of evolution” since they are finally admitting there is no evidence for it. Read some information from the otherside and you will see what I mean.
I remember a few years ago listening to a radio show with a scientist tell how he finally had to admit that the theory of evolution was false. He was a well known scientist that had been an proponent evolution for many years. He finally had to admit that nothing pointed to evolution.
In fact, so little evidence was there (evidence that was not fake, that is) that the evolutionists have had to come up with a new theory, within the theory of evolution. Do you know what it is called. It is called (and excuse the spelling) “puctuated equalibrium”. Since there was no evidence of anything actually evolving, they came up with the theory that goes like this: One day fish laid an agg. Out of the egg came a bird. Then one day a bird laid an egg, out of the egg came a dog, then one day a dog gave birth to a monkey, then the monkey gave birth to a man. See how it works? This theory (that also had no evidence) allowed the scientist to keep the theory of evolution even without any scientific evidence of it.
Evolution is a hoax. Don’t fall for it. Instead, read some books, or websites, that give you the other side of the story. Then you will see for yourself. Here’s a link to an article:
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:K8EOT4IgohEJ:www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/earth-young-old1.htm+evolution+Robert+Sungenis&hl=en
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Led Zeppelin75:
In fact, such people bring scandal on the Church.
And claiming that the Catholic Church REQUIRES you to reject it is showing absolute ignorance of Catholicism.
In fact, such people bring scandal on the Church.
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Oh please. The scientists that reject evolution are OF A MINORITY. Evolution is both a FACT and a THEORY. Do you think dogs just popped up in their current form? No, they evolved from wolves to the various different breeds we have today. Now the earth is around 4.5 billion years old… now imagine what happens to wolves and dogs… repeated a 100 million times. Wallah! there you have it… all the various life forms.
The evidence for evolution observed in labs, nature, and fossils is so overwhelming that only deluded fantatics will claim it to be false. 98% of all biologists accept evolution, and I assure you that includes many christians as well.
However, since you trust the catholic church so much lets take a look at their stance on evolution, shall we? Oh wow! thats right! THE VATICAN ACCEPTS EVOLUTION as God’s method! wow! isnt that just lovely? The one place you go for truth apparently accepts the exact opposite of what you do. tsk, tsk, not a very good Catholic are you, now?
You really need to know what your talking about before running your mouth about it. The pope DOES accept evolution. again ofcourse he doesnt accept we come from monkeys, WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS. again I’ll say it… Monkeys and Humans share a common ancestor. The pope accepts evolution no matter what way you cut it, he accepts it, and that’s that.
Educate yourself and read the following link. talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Does that clear it uphttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon5.gif
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
Scinece can be taken to prove almost anything that exists. God can either be a direct cause of the events that would have to happen to have the universe in existance or the belief that the universe can be existant with God. Let’s examine it.
I’m not saying God can’t exist, I believe in God, but let’s think here. The basic theist beliefs are:
(1) Whatever begins has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You might interpet that cause as the creation.
So since God has no beginning you do not believe he had to have a cause. So I will show you how it is possible how the universe need not have had a beginning and indeed could also very well be partially outside of time. Lets take a look, shall we?
While (1) can be challenged on a number of fronts, let me just mention one rebuttal that has been made from physics. Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.” Thus we have a counter example to statement (1), something that begins without cause.
For this purpose, it should be adequate for me to provide a scenario in which the universe occupies both halves of the time axis. I do not feel compelled to prove that this scenario is true, just show how this is possible within the framework of existing knowledge.
My scenario is provided by inflationary big bang cosmology. Most creations and evolutionists both agree that the big bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations. Inflation remains less firmly established, but remains the only current theory that successfully explains a wide range of observations. Furthermore, the model is falsifiable, and so maintains good scientific credentials. Indeed, with the 1992 COBE observation of a 1/100,000 fluctuation in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, inflation passed at least one risky falsification test.
Suppose the universe was at some point in time completely empty of matter, radiation, or energy of any type. It was about as nothing as nothing can be, a void. Physicists can still describe the void in terms of general relativity. It is completely flat geometrically, with space and time axes that run from minus infinity to plus infinity. Anything else and matter, radiation, or spacetime curvature would have to exist and this universe would no longer be a void.
I’m not saying God can’t exist, I believe in God, but let’s think here. The basic theist beliefs are:
(1) Whatever begins has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You might interpet that cause as the creation.
So since God has no beginning you do not believe he had to have a cause. So I will show you how it is possible how the universe need not have had a beginning and indeed could also very well be partially outside of time. Lets take a look, shall we?
While (1) can be challenged on a number of fronts, let me just mention one rebuttal that has been made from physics. Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of “nothing.” Thus we have a counter example to statement (1), something that begins without cause.
For this purpose, it should be adequate for me to provide a scenario in which the universe occupies both halves of the time axis. I do not feel compelled to prove that this scenario is true, just show how this is possible within the framework of existing knowledge.
My scenario is provided by inflationary big bang cosmology. Most creations and evolutionists both agree that the big bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations. Inflation remains less firmly established, but remains the only current theory that successfully explains a wide range of observations. Furthermore, the model is falsifiable, and so maintains good scientific credentials. Indeed, with the 1992 COBE observation of a 1/100,000 fluctuation in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, inflation passed at least one risky falsification test.
Suppose the universe was at some point in time completely empty of matter, radiation, or energy of any type. It was about as nothing as nothing can be, a void. Physicists can still describe the void in terms of general relativity. It is completely flat geometrically, with space and time axes that run from minus infinity to plus infinity. Anything else and matter, radiation, or spacetime curvature would have to exist and this universe would no longer be a void.
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
(continued)
In the absence of matter and radiation, Einstein’s equations of general relativity yield the de Sitter solution, which simply expresses the curvature of space as proportional to the cosmological constant. When the universe is flat, this term is zero and the equation then reads: 0 = 0. This denotes the void.
This is the way things would have stayed were it not for quantum mechanics, which we can also apply to an empty void. The uncertainty principle allows for the spontaneous, uncaused appearance of energy in a small region of space without violating energy conservation . If that energy appears as matter (that is, rest energy) or radiation (kinetic energy of massless particles like photons), then it will have to disappear in a short time interval to maintain energy conservation. This can be expected to happen randomly throughout the spacetime void, with no significant permanent result.
However, another possibility exists that can lead to a quite significant and permanent result. The fluctuation energy can appear instead as spacetime curvature within this tiny region, which is called a “bubble of false vacuum.” This bubble still contains no matter or radiation, but is no longer a “true vacuum” because of the curvature, as expressed by a non-zero cosmological constant. According to the de Sitter solution, the bubble will expand exponentially in what is called inflation.
The energy density is constant for a brief interval of time. As the volume of the bubble increases exponentially during that interval, the energy contained within also increases exponentially. Although the first law of thermodynamics may seem to be violated, it is not. The pressure is negative and the bubble does work on itself as it expands. By the time it has inflated to the size of a proton, in perhaps 10 42 second, the bubble contains sufficient energy to produce all the matter in the visible universe today. Frictional processes bring inflation to a halt, particle production begins, and the familiar Hubble expansion of the big bang takes over.
We can label as t = 0 the time at which the initial quantum fluctuation takes place. The expansion then proceeds on the positive side of the t-axis, as defined by the increasing entropy on that side. As first suggested a century ago, the direction of time is by definition the direction in which the entropy of the bubble universe increases.
Now, what about the negative side of the t-axis, the other half dimension? If we look at Einstein’s equations, nothing forbids an expansion in that direction as well. Physicists usually simply ignore that solution because most share prejudice, expressed above, that time “proceeds only and always forward.” But the equations of classical or quantum physics, including those of general relativity, make no fundamental distinction between the two time directions. Where that distinction appears, it is put in by hand as a boundary condition.
However, a completely time-symmetric solution of Einstein’s equations for the vacuum will give exponential inflation on both sides of the time axis, proceeding away from t = 0 where the initial quantum fluctuation was located. This implies the existence of another part of our universe, separated from our present part along the time axis. From our point of view, that part is in our deep past, exponentially deflating to the void prior to the quantum fluctuation that then grew to our current universe. However, from the point of view of an observer in the universe at that time, their future is into our past–the direction of increasing entropy on that side of the axis. They would experience a universe expanding into their future, just as we experience one expanding into our future.
In the absence of matter and radiation, Einstein’s equations of general relativity yield the de Sitter solution, which simply expresses the curvature of space as proportional to the cosmological constant. When the universe is flat, this term is zero and the equation then reads: 0 = 0. This denotes the void.
This is the way things would have stayed were it not for quantum mechanics, which we can also apply to an empty void. The uncertainty principle allows for the spontaneous, uncaused appearance of energy in a small region of space without violating energy conservation . If that energy appears as matter (that is, rest energy) or radiation (kinetic energy of massless particles like photons), then it will have to disappear in a short time interval to maintain energy conservation. This can be expected to happen randomly throughout the spacetime void, with no significant permanent result.
However, another possibility exists that can lead to a quite significant and permanent result. The fluctuation energy can appear instead as spacetime curvature within this tiny region, which is called a “bubble of false vacuum.” This bubble still contains no matter or radiation, but is no longer a “true vacuum” because of the curvature, as expressed by a non-zero cosmological constant. According to the de Sitter solution, the bubble will expand exponentially in what is called inflation.
The energy density is constant for a brief interval of time. As the volume of the bubble increases exponentially during that interval, the energy contained within also increases exponentially. Although the first law of thermodynamics may seem to be violated, it is not. The pressure is negative and the bubble does work on itself as it expands. By the time it has inflated to the size of a proton, in perhaps 10 42 second, the bubble contains sufficient energy to produce all the matter in the visible universe today. Frictional processes bring inflation to a halt, particle production begins, and the familiar Hubble expansion of the big bang takes over.
We can label as t = 0 the time at which the initial quantum fluctuation takes place. The expansion then proceeds on the positive side of the t-axis, as defined by the increasing entropy on that side. As first suggested a century ago, the direction of time is by definition the direction in which the entropy of the bubble universe increases.
Now, what about the negative side of the t-axis, the other half dimension? If we look at Einstein’s equations, nothing forbids an expansion in that direction as well. Physicists usually simply ignore that solution because most share prejudice, expressed above, that time “proceeds only and always forward.” But the equations of classical or quantum physics, including those of general relativity, make no fundamental distinction between the two time directions. Where that distinction appears, it is put in by hand as a boundary condition.
However, a completely time-symmetric solution of Einstein’s equations for the vacuum will give exponential inflation on both sides of the time axis, proceeding away from t = 0 where the initial quantum fluctuation was located. This implies the existence of another part of our universe, separated from our present part along the time axis. From our point of view, that part is in our deep past, exponentially deflating to the void prior to the quantum fluctuation that then grew to our current universe. However, from the point of view of an observer in the universe at that time, their future is into our past–the direction of increasing entropy on that side of the axis. They would experience a universe expanding into their future, just as we experience one expanding into our future.
L
Led_Zeppelin75
Guest
(continued)
Would these different parts of the universe be identical, kind of mirror images of each other? Not unless physics is completely deterministic, which we do not believe to be the case. The two parts would more likely be two very different worlds, each expanding in its own merry way, filled with all the other random events that lead to the evolution of galaxies, stars, and perhaps some totally different kind of life.
This scenario also serves to explain why we experience such a large asymmetry in time, while our basic equations do not exhibit an asymmetry at all. Fundamentally, the universe as a whole is time-symmetric, running all the way from minus eternity to plus eternity with no preferred direction, no “arrow” of time. Indeed, the whole notion of beginning is meaningless in a time-symmetric universe. And, without a beginning, the kaläm cosmological argument for a creator fails because of the failure of step (2)
I have described a scenario for an infinite, eternal, and symmetric universe that had no beginning. The quantum fluctuation occurs at one particular spatial point in an infinite void. Obviously it could have happened elsewhere in this void as well. This multiple universe scenario is exactly what is suggested by the chaotic inflationary model of Andre Linde. While multiple universes are not required to deflate the kaläm argument, they can be used to provide a scenario by which the so-called anthropic coincidences may have arisen naturally. Again, this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation. Thanks to the works of Strenger for a good portion of this…
Indeed it seems complex but again what do you expect when you talk about something as complex as the universe?
These are just some things to think about. I believe in God, but I’m in a period of doubt.
Would these different parts of the universe be identical, kind of mirror images of each other? Not unless physics is completely deterministic, which we do not believe to be the case. The two parts would more likely be two very different worlds, each expanding in its own merry way, filled with all the other random events that lead to the evolution of galaxies, stars, and perhaps some totally different kind of life.
This scenario also serves to explain why we experience such a large asymmetry in time, while our basic equations do not exhibit an asymmetry at all. Fundamentally, the universe as a whole is time-symmetric, running all the way from minus eternity to plus eternity with no preferred direction, no “arrow” of time. Indeed, the whole notion of beginning is meaningless in a time-symmetric universe. And, without a beginning, the kaläm cosmological argument for a creator fails because of the failure of step (2)
I have described a scenario for an infinite, eternal, and symmetric universe that had no beginning. The quantum fluctuation occurs at one particular spatial point in an infinite void. Obviously it could have happened elsewhere in this void as well. This multiple universe scenario is exactly what is suggested by the chaotic inflationary model of Andre Linde. While multiple universes are not required to deflate the kaläm argument, they can be used to provide a scenario by which the so-called anthropic coincidences may have arisen naturally. Again, this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation. Thanks to the works of Strenger for a good portion of this…
Indeed it seems complex but again what do you expect when you talk about something as complex as the universe?
These are just some things to think about. I believe in God, but I’m in a period of doubt.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
vern humphrey:
Led,
You have read one side of the issue. Inform yourself by reading both sides. Then you will be able to make an informed judgment. We are all subject to the evolutionist viewpoint from the secular media, the athiest, and the liberals (the unholy trio). Try reading the otherside of the issue as well. You should not limit yourself to reading only one side.
What happens when a Protestant reads only anti-Catholic materials? They become absolutely convinced that the Catholic Church is false (or worse). What happens when these same people begin to look into the other side? Often they completely change their belief. The same is true for evolution and other matters. Look into both sides of the matter and then make your judgment.
You did read my post #60 didn’t you. In that I stated that the Catholic Church has not yet condemned evolution, and therefore Catholics are free to believe in it or not.
Led,
You have read one side of the issue. Inform yourself by reading both sides. Then you will be able to make an informed judgment. We are all subject to the evolutionist viewpoint from the secular media, the athiest, and the liberals (the unholy trio). Try reading the otherside of the issue as well. You should not limit yourself to reading only one side.
What happens when a Protestant reads only anti-Catholic materials? They become absolutely convinced that the Catholic Church is false (or worse). What happens when these same people begin to look into the other side? Often they completely change their belief. The same is true for evolution and other matters. Look into both sides of the matter and then make your judgment.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Where does the “not yet” part come in?
The Church does not reject and is not threatened by science.
It is only Protestant Fundamentalists who see science as a threat – to their rigid, literal interpretations to the Bible.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
vern humphrey:
For now I will gladly be looked at as a fool by the “enlightened” (Athiests, liberals, etc) for going against the politically correct view of things. Time will tell who was right.
The “not yet” part was my opinion showing itself. I think evolution will eventually be shown to be a hoax, and the Church will condemn it. But, this is just my opinion and nothing more. Wel’l have to wait and see what happens.
For now I will gladly be looked at as a fool by the “enlightened” (Athiests, liberals, etc) for going against the politically correct view of things. Time will tell who was right.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
vern humphrey:
I also do not fear “historical research”. I know that what the Bible says is true and no history will prove otherwise. All human views of history are subordinated to what the Bible says, not the other way around. It is interesting to me how people are so quick to dismiss the history contained in the Bible when a “historian” attempts to show that it is false. It should be the other way around. We should suspect any historian that teaches things contrary to the Bible.
If anyone claims that the history as presented in the Bible is false, I simply believe they are wrong. Never does it even cross my mind (and God willing it never will) to question the infallible word of God, because of the fallible opinions of men. That is not a Fundamental Protestant way to think. It is a Catholic way to think, it just may so happen that a Fundamentalist Protestant’s view on the matter are similar to the Catholic vew.
If I told you I was against abortion, would you call me a Mulsim, since they too are against abortion? Just because a false religion has the correct view of a particular matter does not make the matter wrong; it just means the false religion has the correct view on that matter.
My views are Catholic. Sometimes Fundamental Protestants have a similar view as the Catholic Church when it comes to the Bible. That does no make the Catholics wrong, but the Protestants right (on that subject).
One more point. I do not feel in the least threatened by science. I just realize that faith is a much surer source of truth than fallible human science (which seems to change its views every few years). I admit that the faith does not tell me that evolution is a hoax (yet), so I do not view evolution as contrary to the faith.
I also do not fear “historical research”. I know that what the Bible says is true and no history will prove otherwise. All human views of history are subordinated to what the Bible says, not the other way around. It is interesting to me how people are so quick to dismiss the history contained in the Bible when a “historian” attempts to show that it is false. It should be the other way around. We should suspect any historian that teaches things contrary to the Bible.
If anyone claims that the history as presented in the Bible is false, I simply believe they are wrong. Never does it even cross my mind (and God willing it never will) to question the infallible word of God, because of the fallible opinions of men. That is not a Fundamental Protestant way to think. It is a Catholic way to think, it just may so happen that a Fundamentalist Protestant’s view on the matter are similar to the Catholic vew.
If I told you I was against abortion, would you call me a Mulsim, since they too are against abortion? Just because a false religion has the correct view of a particular matter does not make the matter wrong; it just means the false religion has the correct view on that matter.
My views are Catholic. Sometimes Fundamental Protestants have a similar view as the Catholic Church when it comes to the Bible. That does no make the Catholics wrong, but the Protestants right (on that subject).
P
patg
Guest
The bible is ONLY held to be infallible in matters of faith and morals NEVER in terms of history, science, mathematics, biology, geography, or geology. It is clearly full of errors in all those fields.
This is totally against the Catholic view of the bible. Please read Dei Verbum - you can find it online. Search for the sections on literal history.
No, they are not, they are very fundamentalist protestant. The Catholic church teaches that the bible is an instrument used to see God better - it is never proposed as a history, science, mathematics, biology, geography, or geology textbook. The stories used as vehicles for conveying the truths of faith and morals are based on the world-view of the author. This world-view is frequently untenable based on today’s knowledge BUT that doesn’t negate the truths being taught; it just means that you have to know you are not reading history, science, or whatever…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
.
How do you reconcile that statement with the following quotes from the Churches magesterium:
In Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII begins by rejecting the belief that the scriptures are only inspired in the area of faith and morals, which is what the liberal of his day were beginning to claim: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said, as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.
"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.
continue…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
continuation of last post
Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon Leo XIII’s brilliant doctrinal synthesis:
Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.
We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.
Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge.
Against this heresy, Pope Benedict XV recalled the doctrine of St. Jerome, as well as that of the other Fathers of the Church who:
…have drawn this doctrine concerning Holy Scriptures from nowhere else but at the school of our Divine Master Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, are we to understand that Our Lord had any other conception of Scripture? The formulae “It is written,” and, “that the scripture may be fulfilled” are, coming from His lips, an unanswerable argument that puts an end to all controversy.
continue…
Pope Benedict XV, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920), confirms, and amplifies upon Leo XIII’s brilliant doctrinal synthesis:
Although these words of our predecessor leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.
We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.
Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge.
Against this heresy, Pope Benedict XV recalled the doctrine of St. Jerome, as well as that of the other Fathers of the Church who:
…have drawn this doctrine concerning Holy Scriptures from nowhere else but at the school of our Divine Master Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, are we to understand that Our Lord had any other conception of Scripture? The formulae “It is written,” and, “that the scripture may be fulfilled” are, coming from His lips, an unanswerable argument that puts an end to all controversy.
continue…
R
RSiscoe
Guest
continuation of last post
Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the liberal.modernist heresies which were already, at that time, being spread about in the Church:
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. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical *Providentissimus *Deus of November 18, 1893.
Then, quoting Leo XIII word for word:
"It is absolutely forbidden to pretend that the sacred writer himself has fallen into error, since divine inspiration not only excludes any and all possible error in itself, but even loathes and excludes it, since God, Who is sovereign truth, cannot be the author of any possible error.
Pius XII concludes:
This doctrine, which was so forcefully explained by our predecessor Leo XIII, We also propose with our pontifical authority, and We insist that it be held, religiously, by all.
Lastly, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (Sept. 30, 1943), which commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’ s Providentissimus Deus, solemnly condemned the liberal.modernist heresies which were already, at that time, being spread about in the Church:
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. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical *Providentissimus *Deus of November 18, 1893.
Then, quoting Leo XIII word for word:
"It is absolutely forbidden to pretend that the sacred writer himself has fallen into error, since divine inspiration not only excludes any and all possible error in itself, but even loathes and excludes it, since God, Who is sovereign truth, cannot be the author of any possible error.
Pius XII concludes:
This doctrine, which was so forcefully explained by our predecessor Leo XIII, We also propose with our pontifical authority, and We insist that it be held, religiously, by all.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Quote:
After reading what the Church has taught regarding the liberal error that the Bible is only inspired in faith and morals, are you willing to reconsider what you said?
In addition to the infallible declarations by the Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I, it is common sense that a book which has God as its primary author will have not errors in it. If it does have historical errors than God is not its primary author. The Church has defined many times that God is the primary author of the Bible, that the writers were merely His instrunments (as one of the above quotes says) and that there are no errors contained in the Bible - not even historical errors.
As I stated, my beliefs about the Bible are not my own. My opinion is not important. I base my faith, not on my own “opinion”, but on what the Church has always taught.
Those who have a differing view than what the Church has always taught are liberals and don’t know it. Since they hold conservative views on moral issues, they think they are conservative; yet their views on matters of faith show them for what they are.
I do not blame them too much for being influenced by liberalism since it is everywhere today - we are surrounded by a sea of liberalism. However, when the truth has been shown them, and they still reject is, that is another matter all together. I hope you are sincere enough to reconsider your views on the Bible now that I have shown you the “unchangeable teaching of the Church”.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You want charity for yourself (as shown by substituting the word “opinion” for “prejudice”) but deny it to others – first accusing them of calling you a “fool” and then calling them “Athiests, liberals, etc.”
R
RSiscoe
Guest
vern humphrey:
When I have referred in the third person to liberals and Athiests, I am referring to those who readily admit it. I usually try not to call people who are sincerely trying to follow the Church “liberals”. Even if they are, I would much rather say they have been influenced by liberalsism, because I truly hope they will realize their error, and not become hardened in it.
I may have called someone on these boards a liberal, but it was in response to them calling me a Fundamentalist. A person who has been heavily influenced by liberalism will probably consider my views (which are those of the Church, as shown by the quotes I provided) to be Fundamentalist. But that is only because Fundamentalists are not liberals, and when a “person who has been influenced by liberalism” comes up against one who has not been so heavily influenced by liberalism, they may consider them a Fundamentalist, since the Fundamentalists are also not liberals. But all of my views (which have been described by some as “Fundamentalist”) are nothing more than the teachings the Church has always held. And in fact, the opposite views, that I am arguing against, have already been explicitly condemned by the Church.
Again, I realize that we live in a difficult day. The faith has been extremely weakened by liberalism and modernism. Even many of the new catechisms are very ambiguous and can even “seem” to contradict what the Church has always taught. That is not good because it leads, either to confusion, or to outright error. God help a Catholic who is trying to be faithful today!
If people are uncharitable towards me I can handle it. It is actually probably good for me.
When I have referred in the third person to liberals and Athiests, I am referring to those who readily admit it. I usually try not to call people who are sincerely trying to follow the Church “liberals”. Even if they are, I would much rather say they have been influenced by liberalsism, because I truly hope they will realize their error, and not become hardened in it.
I may have called someone on these boards a liberal, but it was in response to them calling me a Fundamentalist. A person who has been heavily influenced by liberalism will probably consider my views (which are those of the Church, as shown by the quotes I provided) to be Fundamentalist. But that is only because Fundamentalists are not liberals, and when a “person who has been influenced by liberalism” comes up against one who has not been so heavily influenced by liberalism, they may consider them a Fundamentalist, since the Fundamentalists are also not liberals. But all of my views (which have been described by some as “Fundamentalist”) are nothing more than the teachings the Church has always held. And in fact, the opposite views, that I am arguing against, have already been explicitly condemned by the Church.
Again, I realize that we live in a difficult day. The faith has been extremely weakened by liberalism and modernism. Even many of the new catechisms are very ambiguous and can even “seem” to contradict what the Church has always taught. That is not good because it leads, either to confusion, or to outright error. God help a Catholic who is trying to be faithful today!
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The question is not, are others charitable toward you, but are you charitable toward others.
Since there are no self-identified liberals or athiests in this thread, why use the terms, then?
I have tried not to do that – only to show that you are following a Protestant, Fundamentalist position. You have, after all, made a veiled accusation of error against the Church (the “not yet” remark) that is very close to a Fundamentalist screed that attacks the Church for not rejecting evolution.
From Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition:
Fundamentalism; 1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith. 2. among some American Protestants, the movement based on these beliefs.
Your position, as you express it, seems to fit right in there. And Fundamentalism is not a Catholic position.
As you have been shown many times – and as you yourself admit (with your “not yet” remark) that is incorrect.
From John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter prefacing the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"In this regard one can certainly understand that such a remarkable number of suggested improvements shows the extraordinary interest that the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine . . . "
And:
“Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time.”
Do you disagree with the Pope’s comments about the Catechism?
R
RSiscoe
Guest
.
It is not uncharitable to correct people when they are in error. People can be uncharitable in the manner in which they do it, but correcting someone is actually a charitable thing to do. If you read over all of the post, you will see that my tone with others was not harsher than their tone with me. Now, you stated that we only have to believe the Bible when it is discusses faith and morals. This is a condemned error. It was not uncharitable for me to show that what you taught has been condemned by the Church many times. If someone is sincerely in error and another does not attempt to show them their error, that is being uncharitable.
Because I am referring to true atheists. Do you deny that there is such a thing as atheists? Of course not. Now, Atheists and self described liberals are the biggest proponents of such things as evolution, which is why I have said liberals and Atheist promote evolution. Why did I say that? Because we should judge a tree by its fruits. If self described liberals and Atheist are in favor of something, and promote it will all their might, while attempting to silence those of a differing view, we should take note of that. Atheists are anti-God. The Bible calls them “fools” - “the fool sayeth in his heart there is not God”. Evolution is part of the liberal and atheistic “religion”. To me, this is just one more confirmation that evolution is a hoax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **RSiscoe **I may have called someone on these boards a liberal, but it was in response to them calling me a Fundamentalist.
Since when did evolution become a de-fide dogma? My opinion that evolution is a hoax, and will eventually be condemned by the Church, does not go against any doctrine of the Church. And you are not being honest. You did not call me a Fundamentalist because of my view on evolution. You called me one because of my views on the Bible. Yet I showed you that what I said about the Bible has been taught by the Popes and confirmed by at least 3 dogmatic councils. In other words, what I said was infallibly true. Now be honest, you called me a Fundamentalist for doing nothing more than speaking the infallible truth as revealed by God and taught by the Church.
- Status