Evolution refuting catholicism?

[Led_Zeppelin75]

dcdurel:

And I repeat again, the Catholic Church has NEVER taught error in 2000 years. That is why you cannot get any agreement by anti-Catholic protestants, atheists, secularists, news media, etc. on any error they can find. For there is no error in Church teaching.

Second, whether the Pope accepts evolution is a moot point. What the Pope believes is not Church teaching. The only thing Catholics have to know is if the Pope teaches that evolution is part of God’s Divine Revelation. And he never has. Also, there are many different theories of evolution. He could never teach a Darwinian evolution, because that evolution rejects God. He could possibly teach an evolution in which God is control of everything that happens. That is why he said there are many theories of evolution.

The personal beliefs of the Pope are not Church teaching. Only what the Pope defines as a matter for all Christians to believe is Church teaching.

Also, the Church has never revised any doctrine. The Church has never contradicted any previous teaching. Once the Church teaches something, that teaching will never change. The Church is infallible, because God founded the Church and gave the leaders of the Church HIS DIVINE AUTHORITY.

Thus, the Church is NOT a man-made organization. It is a DIVINE organization, made up of sinful men, under the leadership of a sinful Pope, who cannot teach error when teaching for the whole Church on matters pertaining to faith or morals.

The reason Jesus founded the Church was so that sinners would have the grace to overcome their sins and eventually spend eternity in heaven with Him.

Thus, Jesus did not start the Church in order to condemn sinful men, but He founded it so that sinful men would have a source of grace to be freed from their sins and have some degee of happiness in this world.
In other words, Jesus loves athiests and He wants them to believe in Him and join His Church so that they can find happiness now on this earth and forever, by the grace He merited. He gives us this grace freely through prayer and through His sacraments. He wants all to have this grace. He wants everyone to be happy.

Makeing doctrine more understandible is not the definition of a reform. Today the Church accepts that Protestants and some non-christians can attain heaven. 50 years ago you were considered a heretic for believeing exactly what the church teaches today. Another example is anti-semitism. In 1916 the church condemned it. But 500 years ago the Church encouraged, or at the very least didin’t do anything to stop, anti-semitism.

And if Christ never condemned, then why did the Church do so to harmless “heretics” diring the inquesition?

 

[ISABUS]

Here is a fantastic website with an audio of eleven scientists explaining what it takes to becoming a scientist. It’s awesome!!! They broadened my view about science and added a new dimension to the evolution of thought. Please take the time to listen to each scientist’s explanation. You won’t be disappointed. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the person you would like to listen to ~

hhmi.org/becoming/hudspeth.html

Enjoy!

Mary

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

Now I have question for you. If God shows his face to humanity and tells them the Catholic church is his church, many people will believe and thus be ‘saved’. The bible and Church teaching say that god wills everyone to be saved. So, why dosen’t he do it? Can he? If you say he can’t you would be saying he has an inablity, which directly throws out the possiblity of him being all powerful. The bible also speaks of a “battle between good and evil”. But if God is all powerful, why is there even a battle? Wouldn’t god just destroy them, and people will be saved (which is supposedly his will)?

 

[ISABUS]

Led Zeppelin75:

Now I have question for you. If God shows his face to humanity and tells them the Catholic church is his church, many people will believe and thus be ‘saved’. The bible and Church teaching say that god wills everyone to be saved. So, why dosen’t he do it? Can he? If you say he can’t you would be saying he has an inablity, which directly throws out the possiblity of him being all powerful. The bible also speaks of a “battle between good and evil”. But if God is all powerful, why is there even a battle? Wouldn’t god just destroy them, and people will be saved (which is supposedly his will)?

Were you asking me this? Well, I honestly have to admit that only God knows. However, I just finished reading a very rare booklet I happened upon called **The Theologia Mystica of Saint Dionysius. **Saint Dionysius was probably a Syrian monk of the late fifth or early sixth century and supposed to be St. Paul’s Athenian convert. This is what I was reading which was translated from Latin, page 38, footnote 14:

**“Created light or truth is the polar opposite of creaturely darkness or falsehood, but God does not stand in relation to darkness and falsehood as its polar opposite, for this would degrade Him to equality with them. The goodness of God is therefore in no dualistic or mutually inter-dependent relation with evil, as is purely human goodness. Our created minds cannot grasp the mystery of evil because they cannot rise above dualism and conceive an order of goodness which is definitively not evil and yet is not the equal and opposite of evil. Because purely human goodness is the equal and opposite of evil it can have no final victory over it. But God has final victory over evil because he is not in a dualistic relation to it. Evil is creaturely, and the dualistic relation can be between one creature and another, but not between Creator and creature. The absolute and essential goodness of God has no opposite which can limit and condition it so far as he Himself is concerned. Deo nihil opponitur.” **

The booklet is a real treasure chest filled with incrediable thoughts St. Dionysius had about God. I just love it and tend to agree with St. Dionysius.

Mary ~

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

ISABUS:

"Created light or truth is the polar opposite of creaturely darkness or falsehood, but God does not stand in relation to darkness and falsehood as its polar opposite, for this would degrade Him to equality with them. The goodness of God is therefore in no dualistic or mutually inter-dependent relation with evil, as is purely human goodness. Our created minds cannot grasp the mystery of evil because they cannot rise above dualism and conceive an order of goodness which is definitively not evil and yet is not the equal and opposite of evil. Because purely human goodness is the equal and opposite of evil it can have no final victory over it. But God has final victory over evil because he is not in a dualistic relation to it. Evil is creaturely, and the dualistic relation can be between one creature and another, but not between Creator and creature. The absolute and essential goodness of God has no opposite which can limit and condition it so far as he Himself is concerned. Deo nihil opponitur."

That is idiotic and does not answer my question.

 

[buffalo]

Led Zeppelin75:

. Today the Church accepts that Protestants and some non-christians can attain heaven. /QUOTE]

What the Church teaches is that everyone who gets to heaven has to go through the Catholic Church to get there.

 

[ISABUS]

Led Zeppelin75:

That is idiotic and does not answer my question.

“Ignorance breeds ignorance, and gives birth to stupidity.” Yep!!! Seems you are living up to your quote! Anyone who calls another person idiotic is ignorant and stupid. That is the truth and** you are living proof of it. **

By the way, you didn’t ask** a** question, you asked 4 questions and I replied to only two of those questions. I would think you could figure that out for yourself but apparently not.** I hope you don’t call yourself a scientist. ** I was responding to your questions: "The bible also speaks of a “battle between good and evil”. But if God is all powerful, why is there even a battle? Wouldn’t god just destroy them, and people will be saved (which is supposedly his will)?

Here was my response:
"Were you asking me this? Well, I honestly have to admit that only God knows. However, I just finished reading a very rare booklet I happened upon called **The Theologia Mystica of Saint Dionysius. **Saint Dionysius was probably a Syrian monk of the late fifth or early sixth century and supposed to be St. Paul’s Athenian convert. This is what I was reading which was translated from Latin, page 38, footnote 14:

**“Created light or truth is the polar opposite of creaturely darkness or falsehood, but God does not stand in relation to darkness and falsehood as its polar opposite, for this would degrade Him to equality with them. The goodness of God is therefore in no dualistic or mutually inter-dependent relation with evil, as is purely human goodness. Our created minds cannot grasp the mystery of evil because they cannot rise above dualism and conceive an order of goodness which is definitively not evil and yet is not the equal and opposite of evil. Because purely human goodness is the equal and opposite of evil it can have no final victory over it. But God has final victory over evil because he is not in a dualistic relation to it. Evil is creaturely, and the dualistic relation can be between one creature and another, but not between Creator and creature. The absolute and essential goodness of God has no opposite which can limit and condition it so far as he Himself is concerned. Deo nihil opponitur.” **

Mary ~

 

[vern_humphrey]

[What the Church teaches is that everyone who gets to heaven has to go through the Catholic Church to get there.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

[846](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’) How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
[/quote]

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Saint Guinefort the Greyhound, pray for us!

 

[vern_humphrey]

** **I was responding to your questions: "The bible also speaks of a “battle between good and evil”. But if God is all powerful, why is there even a battle? Wouldn’t god just destroy them, and people will be saved (which is supposedly his will)?

The battle between good and evil is OUR battle. God does not force us to accept salvation – we have free will. We can lose the battle, through our own actions.

Ultimately, of course, God and the Church win – but as individuals, we must each of us fight our own battle.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

“Ignorance breeds ignorance, and gives birth to stupidity.” Yep!!! Seems you are living up to your quote! Anyone who calls another person idiotic is ignorant and stupid. That is the truth and** you are living proof** of it.

By the way, you didn’t ask** a** question, you asked 4 questions and I replied to only two of those questions. I would think you could figure that out for yourself but apparently not.** I** hope you don’t call yourself a scientist. I was responding to your questions: "The bible also speaks of a “battle between good and evil”. But if God is all powerful, why is there even a battle? Wouldn’t god just destroy them, and people will be saved (which is supposedly his will)?

Here was my response:
"Were you asking me this? Well, I honestly have to admit that only God knows. However, I just finished reading a very rare booklet I happened upon called **The Theologia Mystica of Saint Dionysius. **Saint Dionysius was probably a Syrian monk of the late fifth or early sixth century and supposed to be St. Paul’s Athenian convert. This is what I was reading which was translated from Latin, page 38, footnote 14:

"Created light or truth is the polar opposite of creaturely darkness or falsehood, but God does not stand in relation to darkness and falsehood as its polar opposite, for this would degrade Him to equality with them. The goodness of God is therefore in no dualistic or mutually inter-dependent relation with evil, as is purely human goodness. Our created minds cannot grasp the mystery of evil because they cannot rise above dualism and conceive an order of goodness which is definitively not evil and yet is not the equal and opposite of evil. Because purely human goodness is the equal and opposite of evil it can have no final victory over it. But God has final victory over evil because he is not in a dualistic relation to it. Evil is creaturely, and the dualistic relation can be between one creature and another, but not between Creator and creature. The absolute and essential goodness of God has no opposite which can limit and condition it so far as he Himself is concerned. Deo nihil opponitur."

Mary ~

I think I hit your trigger, why get so defensive. The statement “**Well, I honestly have to admit that only God knows.” **is a bogus statement. You made that up because you couldn’t find a better one.

Why don’t you tell me why I’m a fullfillment of my quote and not religious fanatics? So what, I combine 4 questions to make one big question. And I mentioned that it wasn’t the answer. But what is the relevance to that? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

And your quote is leading to the same response as you are. Something like: “We can’t answer those questions; God is a mystery no one knows him. Who knows why he won’t do his will when he can do it with no problems at all.”

“”"""The battle between good and evil is OUR battle. God does not force us to accept salvation – we have free will. We can lose the battle, through our own actions.

Ultimately, of course, God and the Church win – but as individuals, we must each of us fight our own battle.""""""""

-vern humphrey

Okay, but why dosen’t God show himself so everyone can believe and win his own battle? It is always said that God “wills everyone to be saved”.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

And the church didn’t teach what 846 and 847 in the Cathechism says 50 years ago. If the Church is infallable, why do they revise docritines?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

And the church didn’t teach what 846 and 847 in the Cathechism says 50 years ago.

What’s your basis for that claim?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And the church didn’t teach what 846 and 847 in the Cathechism says 50 years ago. If the Church is infallable, why do they revise docritines?

This shows just how ignorant you are on things Catholic.

Pope Blessed Pius IX said to an audience in 1854:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

And again he wrote in 1863:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia (written in 1908) sums up the traditional teaching of the Church rather nicely:

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. . . . The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. **This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto**). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God Saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. . . .

Boom, shacka-lacka-lacka boom!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

I
Okay, but why dosen’t God show himself so everyone can believe and win his own battle? It is always said that God “wills everyone to be saved”.

Because God leaves you with free will. If God walked the earth all the time, raised the dead, cured the sick, and performed miracles on command, it would be easy to believe.

But He doesn’t do that – He works in His own way, not as we might wish Him to work.

You realize that you are arguing like the anti-evolutions?

Those who oppose evolution are telling God how to do His business. When you say “why dosen’t God show himself so everyone can believe and win his own battle,” you are telling God how to do His business.

 

[ISABUS]

Led Zeppelin75:

I think I hit your trigger,

I’m beginning to believe this is your intent.

why get so defensive. defensive? how about realistic? You said my comments were idiotic. That seems to warrant a response. Or better yet you were looking for a reactiion. From this point on you have made it clear this will be how you wish to dialogue with me and I won’t dialogue with you again if you persist in this fashion.

Weren’t you the one who wrote "id
The statement “**Well, I honestly have to admit that only God knows.” **is a bogus statement. You made that up because you couldn’t find a better one.

Once again you insult me by stating my statement was “bogus”. That is rude. Also, you have decided to accuse me of making up a statement that I believe to be true. Look, I love God and I’ve been a Catholic for over 40 years. I know God is Love. Even the many priests that I have known will tell you ‘only God knows’. All we can say is God is pure Love. And my statement to you that St. Dionysius said seems to me to hold true. His works were widely quoted and deeply respected by mytical and theological writers throughout the ages, and notably by St. Tomas Aquinas, who regarded them as of the highest authority.

Why don’t you tell me why I’m a fullfillment of my quote and not religious fanatics? So what, I combine 4 questions to make one big question. And I mentioned that it wasn’t the answer. But what is the relevance to that? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif



And your quote is leading to the same response as you are. Something like: “We can’t answer those questions; God is a mystery no one knows him. Who knows why he won’t do his will when he can do it with no problems at all.”

You really need to reflect upon my initial response to your two questions. Take a few days and read over what St. Dionysius wrote which I have provided you.

“”"""The battle between good and evil is OUR battle. God does not force us to accept salvation – we have free will. We can lose the battle, through our own actions.

Ultimately, of course, God and the Church win – but as individuals, we must each of us fight our own battle.""""""""

-vern humphrey

Okay, but why dosen’t God show himself so everyone can believe and win his own battle? It is always said that God “wills everyone to be saved”.

Again try rereading what I have provided you. Mary ~

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

vern humphrey:

Because God leaves you with free will. If God walked the earth all the time, raised the dead, cured the sick, and performed miracles on command, it would be easy to believe.

But He doesn’t do that – He works in His own way, not as we might wish Him to work.

You realize that you are arguing like the anti-evolutions?

Those who oppose evolution are telling God how to do His business. When you say “why dosen’t God show himself so everyone can believe and win his own battle,” you are telling God how to do His business.

The whole “trust god and don’t question anything of his” is so old and is used to keep people in check. Again I will repeat, If gos can do anything, and truly wills people to be saved then why dosen’t he do those things? Don’t just think to yourself the same thing, open your mind and think.

ISABUS,

You gave me nothing to respond to. Will we just personally attack each other or have a conversation. The quote you gave me dosen’t deserve any attention, it tells me nothing.

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.”

–Albert Einstein

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

If god can do anything, and truly wills people to be saved then why dosen’t he do those things?

Perhaps he finds it to be a greater good that men come to him freely, than that all be saved by compulsion? And we men are prone to depreciate those things we obtain easily. Saint Ireneaus speaks of this quite beautifully.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.

What exactly is “frail” about rewarding good and punishing evil? Is this not instead justice, which we would expect God to posses in its fullness?

And neither do orthodox Christians claim that God’s purposes are modeled after our own. It is instead our own notion of justice which falls short of perfection, not God’s.

 

[clmowry]

hecd2:

As I said in the previous post the 6 million years is based on palaeontological not molecular data. And as I also pointed out, the actual dates and rates cannot get round the fact that 21 human alleles at DRB-1 survive to the divergence of humans and chimpanzees

I don’t know whether you misunderstand me, because now I don’t understand you. Can you explain what your objection is?

It seems that you have a problem with some aspect of population dynamics, but I can’t quite figure out what it is.

That makes two of us.

Ok…hmmm…let’s see.

If I understand you (which I’m pretty sure I don’t) then you are saying that no matter what the timeline is for human evolution there were never less than 21 humans on earth there could not have been a 1st man.

I just don’t get it and maybe it’s not worth the effort.

But one last try…

Before there were chimps or humans there was a chimp/human species. But there had to be at least 21 or these (probably 10,000 of these) things that all evolved into different independent lineages of humans?

Or

At Time 0 the Number of humans = 0. At Time 0 + 1 Second the Number of Humans = 21.

Or alternatively at Time 0 the Number for humans = 0. At Time 0 + sometime before Human number 1 dies, 20 other humans evolve independently of each other resulting in distinctly diferent human lineages that are not related to each other?

Neither of wich seems very probable to me.

Chuck