If Adam and Eve were real people but existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, then what about Noah?

[thistle]

Adam and Eve weren’t real. Undoubtedly, even ancient Hebrew children knew that it was fiction teaching theology.

HUMANI GENERIS
(Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine)
Pope Pius XII

Encyclical Promulgated on 12 August 1950

1. 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 either that 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.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Adam and Eve weren’t real. Undoubtedly, even ancient Hebrew children knew that it was fiction teaching theology.

How so biblically??? As Catholics we are taught that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

 

[Esquire0130]

Hi, Tobin. Hi, Thistle. Yes, I am a Catholic. Yes I am aware of the monogenesis teaching. No, Adam and Eve did not exist.

There is a tendency for Catholics to point the finger and declare or infer “heretic.” Please don’t. Few Catholics believe everything decreed. Maybe one-quarter of 1%. The heresy implication tends to stifle analysis.

I think that the Church is going to have to relax somewhat on monogenesis. God probably achieved some kind – some version – of monogenesis inside of evolution, but what were the mechanics? Who knows? Neanderthals appear to have been intelligent and self-aware, but so far their remains have shown no genetic mixing at all – at all – with Cro-Magnons. Self-aware = free will, I think. So, there’s a problem.

The important thing about monogenesis is not monogenesis. The important thing about monogenesis is Original Sin – “the sinfulness of our origins,” NOT “the first sin.” That’s a common error.

What is Original Sin? An event in time? Nah! It’s the state of alienation that arises between contingent, sin-seeking, sin-loving human flesh and God in the absence of grace. If you are “in the monogenetic line,” you are made of the same selfish sin-seeking, sin-loving garbage I am, so that you must have the grace purchased on the cross from God’s Own justice to make good decisions.

The Adam and Eve story is nothing but a hypothetical showing how us monogenetic folks WOULD handle EVERY SINGLE moral decision IF we did not have access to grace.

The Bible text is full of evidence that the Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-level hypothetical. When Hebrew children heard the name “Adam,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Mr. Dirt.” (“Adam” translates “red (stuff),” referring to the clay Adam in the hypothetical was made of. When they heard “Eve,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Ms. Life” (because the text calls her “mother of all the living”). So, the Adam and Eve story is the story about “Mr. Dirt” and “Ms. Life.”

When God introduces Adam to Eve, Adam calls her a “woman,” because out of “her man” she was taken. Why does that verse in the story make sense? Because it’s an ancient Hebrew pun – a joke, built into the text, to make people laugh. In Hebrew the text reads that Adam called Eve an ishshah, because out of ishah she was taken. If we translate the logic of the joke into English instead of the Hebrew, we see that “Mr. Dirt” has just called “Ms. Life” a “Herman,” because out of “her man” she was taken.

So, is that history? Or, is that Dr. Seuss?

Other jokes are built into the story.

If we were to bring two Hebrew children forward in time, and they were to hear one of today’s fundamentalists gravely insist that we are descended from Adam and Eve, they would look at each other with shock, and then burst out laughing. Why? Because for them it would be the equivalent of claiming descendancy from the little boy visited by the talking Cat-in-the-Hat (remember – the serpent talked).

 

[thistle]

Hi, Tobin. Hi, Thistle. Yes, I am a Catholic. Yes I am aware of the monogenesis teaching. No, Adam and Eve did not exist.

There is a tendency for Catholics to point the finger and declare or infer “heretic.” Please don’t. Few Catholics believe everything decreed. Maybe one-quarter of 1%. The heresy implication tends to stifle analysis.

I think that the Church is going to have to relax somewhat on monogenesis. God probably achieved some kind – some version – of monogenesis inside of evolution, but what were the mechanics? Who knows? Neanderthals appear to have been intelligent and self-aware, but so far their remains have shown no genetic mixing at all – at all – with Cro-Magnons. Self-aware = free will, I think. So, there’s a problem.

The important thing about monogenesis is not monogenesis. The important thing about monogenesis is Original Sin – “the sinfulness of our origins,” NOT “the first sin.” That’s a common error.

What is Original Sin? An event in time? Nah! It’s the state of alienation that arises between contingent, sin-seeking, sin-loving human flesh and God in the absence of grace. If you are “in the monogenetic line,” you are made of the same selfish sin-seeking, sin-loving garbage I am, so that you must have the grace purchased on the cross from God’s Own justice to make good decisions.

The Adam and Eve story is nothing but a hypothetical showing how us monogenetic folks WOULD handle EVERY SINGLE moral decision IF we did not have access to grace.

The Bible text is full of evidence that the Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-level hypothetical. When Hebrew children heard the name “Adam,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Mr. Dirt.” (“Adam” translates “red (stuff),” referring to the clay Adam in the hypothetical was made of. When they heard “Eve,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Ms. Life” (because the text calls her “mother of all the living”). So, the Adam and Eve story is the story about “Mr. Dirt” and “Ms. Life.”

When God introduces Adam to Eve, Adam calls her a “woman,” because out of “her man” she was taken. Why does that verse in the story make sense? Because it’s an ancient Hebrew pun – a joke, built into the text, to make people laugh. In Hebrew the text reads that Adam called Eve an ishshah, because out of ishah she was taken. If we translate the logic of the joke into English instead of the Hebrew, we see that “Mr. Dirt” has just called “Ms. Life” a “Herman,” because out of “her man” she was taken.

So, is that history? Or, is that Dr. Seuss?

Other jokes are built into the story.

If we were to bring two Hebrew children forward in time, and they were to hear one of today’s fundamentalists gravely insist that we are descended from Adam and Eve, they would look at each other with shock, and then burst out laughing. Why? Because for them it would be the equivalent of claiming descendancy from the little boy visited by the talking Cat-in-the-Hat (remember – the serpent talked).

Sorry my friend but Catholics must accept ALL the teachings of the Church. You may question them if you do not understand them in order to come to a better understanding but you cannot reject any of them.

 

[Esquire0130]

Sorry my friend but Catholics must accept ALL the teachings of the Church. You may question them if you do not understand them in order to come to a better understanding but you cannot reject any of them.

Hi.

Good words. But will your “patriotism” hold-up “in battle”?

Scripture is really the teaching of our Magisterium, simply because (1) our Magisterium declared the inspired Canon, and (2) our Magisterium interprets the Canon.

A lot of Catholics, to get around the risk of contradiction between the Magisterium and Scripture, rely very heavily on the concept of the Magisterium’s Scriptural interpretation power, to the point of secretly thinking, “The Church trumps Scripture,” even though, philosophically, the meaning of Scripture intended by God the Holy Spirit must be objectively real and unchanging, otherwise it means nothing. I.e., the Church doesn’t really “trump Scripture.”

Now, in asking yourself, “Do I REALLY ‘not reject’ ANY of the Magisterium’s teachings?,” consider this hypothetical…

Luke 2 says that Mary “gave birth,” Verse 7, and that Jesus was “born,” Verse 11.

Matthew’s gospel affirms the same. Jesus is said to have experienced “birth.” Matthew 1:18. Mary “gave birth to” a son. Matthew 1:23. Mary “bore” a son. Matthew 1:25. Jesus experienced a “birth.” Matthew 2:1.

The Greek terms used for “give birth” and “born” in Luke and Matthew, *gennao * and tikto, are perfectly identical to the Greek words employed in Luke to described the perfectly natural birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth.

And, the sacrifice of two turtledoves at the time of the Presentation in Luke 2 is the sacrifice of cleansing of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12. Luke 2 tells us that when Mary made this sacrifice, it was “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses.” If Mary did not need cleansing of the blood of childbirth, would it have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses”?

All of that is the teaching of the Church built into Scripture.

Now, here is the problem: The Church *also * teaches that, technically, Jesus was not “born.”

It says that He was “born.” But it very carefully and specifically denies that there was any breaking of tissues – there was no “loss of integrity,” according to the Lateran Council in 649 A.D.

To put it another way, Jesus didn’t come out of Mary’s womb after the fashion of a human birth. There was no breach of the amniotic sac, no “breaking of the water.” Whatever happened, Jesus came out of Mary in a miraculous way. Without physically breaking His enclosure, He came out of it. The Church doesn’t use language akin to “beaming down,” the means of departure from the womb set forth in the Protevangelion of James, which was specifically declared ineligible for the inspired Canon.

So, which teaching “wins”? That Jesus was “gennao’d” and “tikto’d” just as John was “gennao’d” and “tikto’d”? And that Mary’s Leviticus 12 purification was “in accord with the law of Moses” – she did it to purify herself of the blood of childbirth?

Or, should I believe that Jesus did not come out of Mary after the fashion of human birth?

You can jump up and down and insist, “He was born. Absolutely. Born. Born. Born. It’s a birth. Get it? Birth.”

But, in the end, you would be perfectly unconvincing. Why? Because if Mary’s purification was “in accord with the law of Moses,” she needed purifying, otherwise it wasn’t “in accord with the law of Moses.”

Now, suppose I say, “I agree with Matthew and Luke, and I disagree with the decree of the Lateran Council. I believe that the Lateran Council’s decree is contrary to the Church’s teaching in Matthew and Luke.”

Which do you pick? Do you accept the Lateran Council’s teaching, because, in your own words, “you cannot reject any of them”? Or, are you going to not *really * accept the teaching of the Lateran Council?

Suppose I infer to you, “YOU ACCEPT SCRIPTURE AND REJECT THE EXPRESS TEACHING OF THE LATERAN COUNCIL???!!! YOU HERETIC!!! YOU ARE NOT REALLY A CATHOLIC!!!”

This is why we must be patient and kind and loving in these things.

Don’t say, “You can not reject ANY of the teachings of the Church!!!”

Instead, patiently, and with the quiet, gentle, unaccusing love of a Catholic, say Augustine’s words, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi, Tobin. Hi, Thistle. Yes, I am a Catholic. Yes I am aware of the monogenesis teaching. No, Adam and Eve did not exist.

There is a tendency for Catholics to point the finger and declare or infer “heretic.” Please don’t. Few Catholics believe everything decreed. Maybe one-quarter of 1%. The heresy implication tends to stifle analysis.

I think that the Church is going to have to relax somewhat on monogenesis. God probably achieved some kind – some version – of monogenesis inside of evolution, but what were the mechanics? Who knows? Neanderthals appear to have been intelligent and self-aware, but so far their remains have shown no genetic mixing at all – at all – with Cro-Magnons. Self-aware = free will, I think. So, there’s a problem.

The important thing about monogenesis is not monogenesis. The important thing about monogenesis is Original Sin – “the sinfulness of our origins,” NOT “the first sin.” That’s a common error.

What is Original Sin? An event in time? Nah! It’s the state of alienation that arises between contingent, sin-seeking, sin-loving human flesh and God in the absence of grace. If you are “in the monogenetic line,” you are made of the same selfish sin-seeking, sin-loving garbage I am, so that you must have the grace purchased on the cross from God’s Own justice to make good decisions.

The Adam and Eve story is nothing but a hypothetical showing how us monogenetic folks WOULD handle EVERY SINGLE moral decision IF we did not have access to grace.

The Bible text is full of evidence that the Adam and Eve story is a Dr.-Seuss-level hypothetical. When Hebrew children heard the name “Adam,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Mr. Dirt.” (“Adam” translates “red (stuff),” referring to the clay Adam in the hypothetical was made of. When they heard “Eve,” they functionally heard the ancient equivalent of “Ms. Life” (because the text calls her “mother of all the living”). So, the Adam and Eve story is the story about “Mr. Dirt” and “Ms. Life.”

When God introduces Adam to Eve, Adam calls her a “woman,” because out of “her man” she was taken. Why does that verse in the story make sense? Because it’s an ancient Hebrew pun – a joke, built into the text, to make people laugh. In Hebrew the text reads that Adam called Eve an ishshah, because out of ishah she was taken. If we translate the logic of the joke into English instead of the Hebrew, we see that “Mr. Dirt” has just called “Ms. Life” a “Herman,” because out of “her man” she was taken.

So, is that history? Or, is that Dr. Seuss?

Other jokes are built into the story.

If we were to bring two Hebrew children forward in time, and they were to hear one of today’s fundamentalists gravely insist that we are descended from Adam and Eve, they would look at each other with shock, and then burst out laughing. Why? Because for them it would be the equivalent of claiming descendancy from the little boy visited by the talking Cat-in-the-Hat (remember – the serpent talked).

If you don’t believe in everything the Church teaches then you are not excercising true Catholicism

 

[thistle]

Hi.

Good words. But will your “patriotism” hold-up “in battle”?

Scripture is really the teaching of our Magisterium, simply because (1) our Magisterium declared the inspired Canon, and (2) our Magisterium interprets the Canon.

A lot of Catholics, to get around the risk of contradiction between the Magisterium and Scripture, rely very heavily on the concept of the Magisterium’s Scriptural interpretation power, to the point of secretly thinking, “The Church trumps Scripture,” even though, philosophically, the meaning of Scripture intended by God the Holy Spirit must be objectively real and unchanging, otherwise it means nothing. I.e., the Church doesn’t really “trump Scripture.”

Now, in asking yourself, “Do I REALLY ‘not reject’ ANY of the Magisterium’s teachings?,” consider this hypothetical…

Luke 2 says that Mary “gave birth,” Verse 7, and that Jesus was “born,” Verse 11.

Matthew’s gospel affirms the same. Jesus is said to have experienced “birth.” Matthew 1:18. Mary “gave birth to” a son. Matthew 1:23. Mary “bore” a son. Matthew 1:25. Jesus experienced a “birth.” Matthew 2:1.

The Greek terms used for “give birth” and “born” in Luke and Matthew, *gennao * and tikto, are perfectly identical to the Greek words employed in Luke to described the perfectly natural birth of John the Baptist to Elizabeth.

And, the sacrifice of two turtledoves at the time of the Presentation in Luke 2 is the sacrifice of cleansing of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12. Luke 2 tells us that when Mary made this sacrifice, it was “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses.” If Mary did not need cleansing of the blood of childbirth, would it have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses”?

All of that is the teaching of the Church built into Scripture.

Now, here is the problem: The Church *also * teaches that, technically, Jesus was not “born.”

It says that He was “born.” But it very carefully and specifically denies that there was any breaking of tissues – there was no “loss of integrity,” according to the Lateran Council in 649 A.D.

To put it another way, Jesus didn’t come out of Mary’s womb after the fashion of a human birth. There was no breach of the amniotic sac, no “breaking of the water.” Whatever happened, Jesus came out of Mary in a miraculous way. Without physically breaking His enclosure, He came out of it. The Church doesn’t use language akin to “beaming down,” the means of departure from the womb set forth in the Protevangelion of James, which was specifically declared ineligible for the inspired Canon.

So, which teaching “wins”? That Jesus was “gennao’d” and “tikto’d” just as John was “gennao’d” and “tikto’d”? And that Mary’s Leviticus 12 purification was “in accord with the law of Moses” – she did it to purify herself of the blood of childbirth?

Or, should I believe that Jesus did not come out of Mary after the fashion of human birth?

You can jump up and down and insist, “He was born. Absolutely. Born. Born. Born. It’s a birth. Get it? Birth.”

But, in the end, you would be perfectly unconvincing. Why? Because if Mary’s purification was “in accord with the law of Moses,” she needed purifying, otherwise it wasn’t “in accord with the law of Moses.”

Now, suppose I say, “I agree with Matthew and Luke, and I disagree with the decree of the Lateran Council. I believe that the Lateran Council’s decree is contrary to the Church’s teaching in Matthew and Luke.”

Which do you pick? Do you accept the Lateran Council’s teaching, because, in your own words, “you cannot reject any of them”? Or, are you going to not *really * accept the teaching of the Lateran Council?

Suppose I infer to you, “YOU ACCEPT SCRIPTURE AND REJECT THE EXPRESS TEACHING OF THE LATERAN COUNCIL???!!! YOU HERETIC!!! YOU ARE NOT REALLY A CATHOLIC!!!”

This is why we must be patient and kind and loving in these things.

Don’t say, “You can not reject ANY of the teachings of the Church!!!”

Instead, patiently, and with the quiet, gentle, unaccusing love of a Catholic, say Augustine’s words, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

I can and do say you cannot reject any of the teachings of the Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Catholic teachings. If any Catholic obstinately rejects even one of these then that is heresy.

 

[SHW]

And, the sacrifice of two turtledoves at the time of the Presentation in Luke 2 is the sacrifice of cleansing of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12. Luke 2 tells us that when Mary made this sacrifice, it was “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses.” If Mary did not need cleansing of the blood of childbirth, would it have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of Moses”?

Instead, patiently, and with the quiet, gentle, unaccusing love of a Catholic, say Augustine’s words, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.”

Mary followed all the Law of Moses even though she did not need to. She was HUMILITY personified while she was on earth. God exalted her after her assumption. She would have drawn a lot of attention to herself if she exempted herself from these laws. She chose to obey the Law of Moses in humility. After all, her divine Son saved her from Original sin before it could taint her. Jesus still redeemed her from Original Sin even if it was before His own death on the cross.

Regarding Adam and Eve. Paul states in Romans 5 that Adam was a man and that this one man Adam sinned.

Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

If you are no longer in the womb and you are alive, then you have been born alive. Children living because of C-sections prove this fact. They did separate from the tissues after they were removed from the womb but so what. They are born. Jesus did not need to separate any tissues in order to be born miraculously. If He was in the womb and then taken out of the womb by whatever means; then he was “born.” If a child is taken out of the womb after the child dies within the womb, then the child is born dead.

Believing that Adam was the first man and that it was also this same Adam who sinned the first sin is essential to the Catholic faith.

SHW

 

[edwest2]

Catholics are creationists? The late Pope John Paul II begs to differ:-

Source:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Buffallo wrote:

That is such ridiculous distortion I won’t even dignify it with an answer!

Hi,

Having worked in health care for over 9 years, I’ve seen the trial and error. An eminent doctor I worked with was involved in trial and error research. He wrote scholarly books and won at least one award for his effort.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To Darwinsbulldog -

Nuclear medicine wouldn’t work? What?

The patient is on a gurney. The tech injects the patient with an irradiated substance. The patient is then wheeled under a large circular detector. As times passes, the detector picks up the progress of the irradiated material as it passes through the body and is absorbed by particular tissues. That’s it.

And I suggest you find out what Pope John Paul II meant about evolution in its entirety:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

See part 64.

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholic1seeks]

What is Original Sin? An event in time? Nah!

YAH!:yup: – it* is*. I realize your own personal definition would beg to differ, but original sin as an event is something taught both biblically and historically through the Church.

You may say that we’re holding a patriotism with the Church when we believe its teachings. But we’re believing Jesus’ promise that he will be with us until the very end and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church, the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15), into all truth.

If science is holding you back, it shouldn’t. Every belief - the truths we assent to via faith - cannot go head to head with reason (i.e., science).

 

[tobinatorstark]

YAH!:yup: – it* is*. I realize your own personal definition would beg to differ, but original sin as an event is something taught both biblically and historically through the Church.

You may say that we’re holding a patriotism with the Church when we believe its teachings. But we’re believing Jesus’ promise that he will be with us until the very end and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church, the pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15), into all truth.

If science is holding you back, it shouldn’t. Every belief - the truths we assent to via faith - cannot go head to head with reason (i.e., science).

Maybe you should apply that principle to evolution and the truth what is contained in the Bible as well as the magesterium, which is Christ’s teachings

 

[catholic1seeks]

Maybe you should apply that principle to evolution and the truth what is contained in the Bible as well as the magesterium, which is Christ’s teachings

“…Every belief - the truths we assent to via faith - cannot go head to head with reason (i.e., science).”

I do apply that principle to evolution. Remember, there are various forms of evolution. Some go against faith, but genuine science properly done will not. God could have used evolution for any of His purposes (you know that).

As to do with the Bible and the Magisterium, show me where the Bible or the teaching office of the Church has said that God didn’t use evolution.

I recommend this article from Catholic Answers.

 

[Esquire0130]

Here’s another reason, Thistle and Tobin, why it is not as simple as following the Church’s teaching.

In the time of Pope Liberius, the great Arian heresy was conquering the civilized world. Soldiers of the Arian Roman Emperor surrounded Rome. The Emperor demanded that the Pope make a statement respecting Arian theology. Liberius set forth a formula ambiguously approving of Arianism.

Bishop Athanasius, alone, defied the Pope and the Emperor. The Roman Emperor, to make fun of Athanasius, laughed and said, “It’s Athanasius against the world!”

The snide comment became an eternal rallying cry for Athanasius.

Afterward, the Pope relented. He condemned his own prior teaching, and adopted the Athanasian formula.

Athanasius, against the world, won!

Now, note: You two would have followed Liberius out of the Catholic faith, and abandoned Athanasius.

It’s not as simple as your inferences, above, that I am a heretic. It’s just not simple, friends.

 

[thistle]

Here’s another reason, Thistle and Tobin, why it is not as simple as following the Church’s teaching.

In the time of Pope Liberius, the great Arian heresy was conquering the civilized world. Soldiers of the Arian Roman Emperor surrounded Rome. The Emperor demanded that the Pope make a statement respecting Arian theology. Liberius set forth a formula ambiguously approving of Arianism.

Bishop Athanasius, alone, defied the Pope and the Emperor. The Roman Emperor, to make fun of Athanasius, laughed and said, “It’s Athanasius against the world!”

The snide comment became an eternal rallying cry for Athanasius.

Afterward, the Pope relented. He condemned his own prior teaching, and adopted the Athanasian formula.

Athanasius, against the world, won!

Now, note: You two would have followed Liberius out of the Catholic faith, and abandoned Athanasius.

It’s not as simple as your inferences, above, that I am a heretic. It’s just not simple, friends.

It IS that simple. As I said before the CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (doctrine and discipline) and Catholics must accept and obey all of them. If a Catholic doesn’t understand a teaching then the onus is on that person to come to a better understanding. If a Catholic obstinately rejects one of more of these teachings then that is heresy. I am not calling you a heretic because I don’t know you. I am telling you objectively what would be heresy for a Catholic.

 

[tobinatorstark]

“…Every belief - the truths we assent to via faith - cannot go head to head with reason (i.e., science).”

I do apply that principle to evolution. Remember, there are various forms of evolution. Some go against faith, but genuine science properly done will not. God could have used evolution for any of His purposes (you know that).

As to do with the Bible and the Magisterium, show me where the Bible or the teaching office of the Church has said that God didn’t use evolution.

I recommend this article from Catholic Answers.

The Church has no official teaching on Evolution. I on the other accept the Church’s teaching and exercise my opinion that science should have no part in biblical matters.

 

[tobinatorstark]

“…Every belief - the truths we assent to via faith - cannot go head to head with reason (i.e., science).”

I do apply that principle to evolution. Remember, there are various forms of evolution. Some go against faith, but genuine science properly done will not. God could have used evolution for any of His purposes (you know that).

As to do with the Bible and the Magisterium, show me where the Bible or the teaching office of the Church has said that God didn’t use evolution.

I recommend this article from Catholic Answers.

BTW the article is poorly written as most of his articles are.

 

[tobinatorstark]

It IS that simple. As I said before the CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (doctrine and discipline) and Catholics must accept and obey all of them. If a Catholic doesn’t understand a teaching then the onus is on that person to come to a better understanding. If a Catholic obstinately rejects one of more of these teachings then that is heresy. I am not calling you a heretic because I don’t know you. I am telling you objectively what would be heresy for a Catholic.

nicely said.

 

[selah603]

Did you know that most cultures have a flood story? Is it possible that these stories were told through the ages by families that descended from Noah?

Just some food for thought

 

[Esquire0130]

It IS that simple. As I said before the CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (doctrine and discipline) and Catholics must accept and obey all of them. If a Catholic doesn’t understand a teaching then the onus is on that person to come to a better understanding. If a Catholic obstinately rejects one of more of these teachings then that is heresy. I am not calling you a heretic because I don’t know you. I am telling you objectively what would be heresy for a Catholic.

It’s still not that simple. Here’s another confounding story: We had an event at our parish church once in which Camden Diocese Bishop McHugh should have made a papal blessing available. I was curious that he omitted it from the ceremony. I met with him and our pastor after the ceremony and asked for the papal blessing, because I wished to pass the benefit of it on to a deceased friend. Bishop McHugh said, “Oh, Pete, you don’t believe that stuff, do you? – that you can pass a plenary indulgence on to the dead?” and he and our pastor laughed! I responded, “Eminence, it’s Church doctrine.” He said, “I know. But it’s wrong. Salvation doesn’t come so easily.” I answered, “Eminence, whatever you shall bind on Earth…”

So, here’s the question for Thistle and Tobin: Was Bishop McHugh a heretic? Was Bishop McHugh a Catholic?

You can sit there and pat yourselves on the back and make yourselves feel good about how wonderfully orthodox you are while others bathe in the swill of “heresy,” but you will end up following bishops and popes right out of the Church. Remember, It * was *Athanasius against the world. Pope Liberius *did * condemn his own teaching. Beware of assuming that, transactionally, infallibility means that the pope will never teach bad things. Liberius did, and then he condemned his own teaching (and, implicitly, those who loyally followed him out of Catholicism – which would have included you, correct?).

It’s not simple, friends.

Notice that you folks do not deal in specifics when you imply that another is a heretic.

Tell me, Thistle, with whom did Cain copulate?