R
ricmat
Guest
I see that you conflate a literal Adam and Eve (which the church teaches) with “6000 years ago” which it does not. Why did you do that?
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s fine – by nature I’m not a conformist. And since I’ve never personally met a theologian or bishop or priest who is an Adamic literalist, I’m not awaiting catechismal revision.
B
buffalo
Guest
So you did not sign the mandatuum. That means students you teach this stuff to are being misled by your non-conformist notions. You do not feel the least bit guilty for this dishonesty?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Do the math, in the sense of the patriarchal genealogies. If you insist on a literal Adam and Eve, you shouldn’t turn around dismiss the list of “begats” as figurative. Archbishop Usher’s calculations pointed to 4004 B.C. If Adam and Eve are to be interpreted literally, why not interpret literally the cosmogonic stories, the narratives of Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, the Tower of Babel, the genealogies, etc.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Indeed, I would feel guilty if I misled the students, which I don’t.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why haven’t you yet stopped beating your wife?
B
buffalo
Guest
Figures.
Avoid the question by trying to flip it back to me.
My question stands. Why did you decide not to sign?
R
ricmat
Guest
This has nothing to do with consistently interpreting the bible as literal or not.
The church teaches in a literal Adam and Eve. It does not teach that they lived 6000 years ago. It seems to me that you wish to discredit the first item by conflating it with the second item. Is that what you were trying to do?
B
buffalo
Guest
I can answer. Look back at her posts. She typically uses this method. That is how she is teaching her students. With teachers like her no wonder our kids come out without belief as the truth is twisted and mocked in such a way. The devils way is to confuse young minds. She is expert.
She didn’t sign the mandatuum, that should tell you everything you need to know.
O
oriel16
Guest
The Hebrew author(s) protected the Spiritual message using a narrative chronological device which links the creation of Adam to the first drop of rain of Noah’s flood.I can answer. Look back at her posts. She typically uses this method. That is how she is teaching her students. With teachers like her no wonder our kids come out without belief as the truth is twisted and mocked in such a way. The devils way is to confuse young minds. She is expert.
She didn’t sign the mandatuum, that should tell you everything you need to know.
I have seen many try to challenge that Divinely inspired masterpiece as a facet within the Genesis text but it defends itself in such a way that fools never get it and people who try to vandalise it look foolish.
Page 10 -
books.google.ie/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inner+reaches+outer+space&ei=C-GmSYepKIvCMvCFrIQO#PPA10,M1
That great facet which stops the surface narrative necessity from destroying the underlying love of the authors for their God and for their people through a Spiritual message is just a device and not an end in itself or a point of departure for something that is not already known.People in this age are so vacuous that they would just not see the point and that is why it will be stone cold to them rather than a vibrant expression of the God of Jesus through the fall in Adam.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s a joke, based on the Buffalo questioning technique. You asked why I decided not to sign the mandatum (assuming I hadn’t). I asked why you hadn’t stopped beating your wife (assuming you do). Let’s start by asking the right questions, not by making gratuitous assumptions.
C
cassini
Guest
Re: Can someone please give me the Catholic ‘teaching’ that says evolution is not opposed to Catholic teaching.
My but aren’t you theistic evolutionists as short on ‘Catholic teaching’ that says evolutionism and Catholicism are compatible, as you were in not being able to answer my other thread asking one of you to show us how evolutionism and the dogmas on Adam and Eve and Original Sin can be made comply with evolution.
On this thread the best you guys can come up with is Humani Generis, an encyclical letter from Pope Pius XII that merely carried warnings that evolutionism MUST comply with Catholic dogma, not that it IS.
‘If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’
At best it allows evolutionists TRY to show how it can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. This way everybody will see it DOESN’T.
But Pope Pius XII was well aware that you theistic-evolutionists, so cock-sure of your ‘science’ that he had to warn others about YOU:
‘Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question…’
Tell me half the threads on this forum on evolution were not written by Catholics who place science ahead of revelation and catholic theology in their list of infallible beliefs.
Humani Generis’s final warning
’ When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’
more no. nos for evolutionists, including the question none of you could answer on my other thread about Adam and Eve and Original Sin.’
Now someone correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Cardinal Ratzinger hint or point to Adam and Eve as methaphor for ‘mankind’ in his book In The Beginning 1981, reprinted when he wasa made pope? I certainly know I have read many such accounts written by ‘Catholics’ that include all the no, nos forbidden by Pius XII above.
So, where in God’s name does the above say evolution is not not opposed to Catholic faith? You first have to compile your theology, submit it to the Church, and then you will see if your mish-mash is compatible to Catholic teaching.
‘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.’
Given the pathetic three liner theology by one of you on the other thread, we find you have NOTHING to say. Compare this with the 1000 posts on the ‘scientific evidence’,
Finally, here is the new religion of the evolutionists:
Fr Guy Consolmagno SJ, Vatican Observatory, revising the Galileo case once again for all gullible Catholics today, said recently:
‘or, to put it in another way, religion tells us that God made the universe, science tells us how He did it.’
Now time was when Catholic theology told us how God created and there is a wealth of theology on the matter. How sad to see all this theology redundant. Evolutionism, any Catholic worth his or her salt should see if they had any faith in them, is a doctrinal POISON.
My but aren’t you theistic evolutionists as short on ‘Catholic teaching’ that says evolutionism and Catholicism are compatible, as you were in not being able to answer my other thread asking one of you to show us how evolutionism and the dogmas on Adam and Eve and Original Sin can be made comply with evolution.
On this thread the best you guys can come up with is Humani Generis, an encyclical letter from Pope Pius XII that merely carried warnings that evolutionism MUST comply with Catholic dogma, not that it IS.
‘If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’
At best it allows evolutionists TRY to show how it can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. This way everybody will see it DOESN’T.
But Pope Pius XII was well aware that you theistic-evolutionists, so cock-sure of your ‘science’ that he had to warn others about YOU:
‘Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question…’
Tell me half the threads on this forum on evolution were not written by Catholics who place science ahead of revelation and catholic theology in their list of infallible beliefs.
Humani Generis’s final warning
’ When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’
more no. nos for evolutionists, including the question none of you could answer on my other thread about Adam and Eve and Original Sin.’
Now someone correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t Cardinal Ratzinger hint or point to Adam and Eve as methaphor for ‘mankind’ in his book In The Beginning 1981, reprinted when he wasa made pope? I certainly know I have read many such accounts written by ‘Catholics’ that include all the no, nos forbidden by Pius XII above.
So, where in God’s name does the above say evolution is not not opposed to Catholic faith? You first have to compile your theology, submit it to the Church, and then you will see if your mish-mash is compatible to Catholic teaching.
‘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.’
Given the pathetic three liner theology by one of you on the other thread, we find you have NOTHING to say. Compare this with the 1000 posts on the ‘scientific evidence’,
Finally, here is the new religion of the evolutionists:
Fr Guy Consolmagno SJ, Vatican Observatory, revising the Galileo case once again for all gullible Catholics today, said recently:
‘or, to put it in another way, religion tells us that God made the universe, science tells us how He did it.’
Now time was when Catholic theology told us how God created and there is a wealth of theology on the matter. How sad to see all this theology redundant. Evolutionism, any Catholic worth his or her salt should see if they had any faith in them, is a doctrinal POISON.
B
buffalo
Guest
All right - I will step back. Were you asked to sign the mandatuum?
Did you sign the mandatuum?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The mandatum was not offered. However, I am on good terms with our bishop, who is an avid student of topics in religion and science. If at some future time the mandatum is offered, I will request to sign it. Not everyone in the religious studies department would be so willing, however, and I’m not happy with the contentious tone of a number of them. Such is life under academic freedom…
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Yes, it does have to do with consistency of interpretation. If one insists that Genesis 1-3 is to be interpreted literally, or 1-11, then what is the justification for excepting chapter 5?
R
ricmat
Guest
Because the Church teaches that there was a literal Adam and Eve, and does not teach that they lived 4000-6000 years ago.
You’ll have to take it up with the magesterium. I don’t know their justification but will assume that they are correct, and that StA is wrong.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I imagine the subject will arise in Rome next week. Whether the magisterium will comment on it or not I don’t know. I shall search for a theologian who interprets the story literally; I doubt the geneticists or biologists will.
StAnastasia
R
ricmat
Guest
So you don’t think the church teaches that there was a literal Adam and Eve?
- Status