if not evolution....

[grannymh]

Haha, well all I can say is this:

If you have a problem with what CAF’s apologists and CAF’s encyclopedia are saying about this, you might want to write to CAF and tell them you think they are giving out heretical information.

If you would kindly reread my explanation of Nihil Obstat found in post 93, you will then understand that I did not say that the link was heretical. As one who is very familiar with Nihil Obstat, (I did obtain one for something I wrote) I can assure you that what was presented was in accord with Catholic teaching. What I did point out is that additional information could have been presented since it was available.

And while you’re at it you might also want to write to the Bishop who approved of the information:

Actually, when you come across a recent book that has the explanation of Nihil Obstat, you will discover that the Censor Librorum (who gives the Nihil Obstat) does not necessarily have to agree with the information. Here is the paragraph which follows the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

“The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet** is free from doctrinal or moral error**. No Implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.” Emphasis mine.

 

[buffalo]

One small difference.

In this source he writes his opinion. He doesn’t write what the Church’s stance on the issue actually is. I have no need to contact him and complain because he has every right to have his opinions on the origin of the world, and his opinion is not contrary to Church teaching, just as theistic evolution is not contrary to Church teaching.

What we need are sources that actually, clearly and objectively state the Church’s stance on the subject. Which I have already provided for everyone’s convenience.

You should review the sources he taps into. In any case, it has been shown on these forums over and over again what the Church constantly believed and taught.

It is up to those who disagree to show magisterial document that shows the errors.

 

[buffalo]

Here is Dogma:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   *] Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. (De fide.)
   *] Original Sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
   *] In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of integrity. (De fide in regard to Sanctifying Grace and the Donum Immortalitatus. D788 et seq.)
   *] Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.)

 

[grannymh]

What we need are sources that actually, clearly and objectively state the Church’s stance on the subject. Which I have already provided for everyone’s convenience.

The source you provided contains two important points. What needs to be added is the information regarding monogenism and polygenism.

Catholics are not permitted to accept biological opinions (polygenism in the 21st century) which deny the reality of two, sole, founders of the human race, biblically known as Adam and Eve. The Catholic doctrine is known as monogenism.

Sources: St. Paul; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; Council of Trent DS 1511-1512; Humani Generis Section 37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edtion paragraphs 355 - 421*.*

 

[Al_Moritz]

The source you provided contains two important points. What needs to be added is the information regarding monogenism and polygenism.

Catholics are not permitted to accept biological opinions (polygenism in the 21st century) which deny the reality of two, sole, founders of the human race, biblically known as Adam and Eve. The Catholic doctrine is known as monogenism.

Sources: St. Paul; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; Council of Trent DS 1511-1512; Humani Generis Section 37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edtion paragraphs 355 - 421*.*

Well, we have discussed monogenism of humans before, and yes, it is compatible with biological polygenism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

 

[grannymh]

Haha, well all I can say is this:

If you have a problem with what CAF’s apologists and CAF’s encyclopedia are saying about this, you might want to write to CAF and tell them you think they are giving out heretical information.

As a writer, loyal to Catholic Answers, they were some of the first people I contacted more than a year ago when I started researching the Catholic doctrine of monogenism in the 21st century. I also have been in touch with two of the writers Michelle Arnold recommended. Since I was the researcher, I asked for information and shared some of my observations.

While the four-letter word heretical is an eye catcher, there was absolutely no reason for me to use it with Catholic Answers. I still have no reason to use that word as I explained in
post 100.

In addition, I have been in contact with professionals in philosophy and science. There is definitely a need to restate the Catholic doctrine of two, real, sole, human parents of humanity. Even when articles on this subject are published, the prime sources for the Catholic position is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 390 within the context of paragraphs 386 - 421, and Humani Generis, section 37.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Debora123]

Clearly, people will believe what they want to believe regarding what the Church’s stance is… even when presented with current, reliable, correct sources.

It is what it is. And quite frankly, unless you’re the pope, it really doesn’t effect me in the least bit.

Sayonara!

 

[Debora123]

The source you provided contains two important points. What needs to be added is the information regarding monogenism and polygenism.

Catholics are not permitted to accept biological opinions (polygenism in the 21st century) which deny the reality of two, sole, founders of the human race, biblically known as Adam and Eve. The Catholic doctrine is known as monogenism.

Sources: St. Paul; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4.1; Council of Trent DS 1511-1512; Humani Generis Section 37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edtion paragraphs 355 - 421*.*

ALL the sources I provided are right here from Catholic Answers. If you think they have some important, critical information missing, then I would definitely contact them and let them know.

 

[Debora123]

Clearly, people will believe what they want to believe regarding what the Church’s stance is… even when presented with current, reliable, correct sources.

It is what it is. And quite frankly, unless you’re the pope, it really doesn’t effect me in the least bit.

Sayonara!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

ALL the sources I provided are right here from Catholic Answers. If you think they have some important, critical information missing, then I would definitely contact them and let them know.

Please do not What grannymh writes is accurate Catholic Teaching:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and 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.[11] 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.

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 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.[12]

 

[grannymh]

This is my public apology to Catholic Answers

Humani Generis 37 is contained in their link, but not in the section beginning with "Concerning human evolution .…"

I was surprised that Section 37 was not referred to in the Evolution Section because off CAF polygenism in various forms is an issue in various blogs regarding evolution theory and of course in recent research. On CAF, polygenism has been part of the mountains of evolution evidence used to intimidate CAF posters.

Since I posted that I wondered why the section was not with section 36, I have continued to search the link. And I did find it someplace else.

Even though, I made a mistake, which I regret, there has been the benefit that people are waking up to the fact a 1950 document is right on target when it comes to the 21st century. My bad example serves to highlight some of the problems when certain sections are chosen to make a point.

In any case, I am sorry.

Blessings
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the misadventures of the journey.

P.S. I do hope Debora123 and others will add monogenism as “point 3” of Catholic theistic evolution.

 

[Qoeleth]

Man/Woman were spirits because God is Spirit. Eating from the Tree of Knowledge, whatever substance it was, caused man/woman to become flesh or create flesh from eating the substance thereby nakedness/shame became known to the now humans in the garden. Banished in the flesh, we as humans must learn how to re-acquire the spirit that was given by God to us in man/woman’s creation.
:crying:

That’s an effective and comprehensible way of conceiving it- quite a few of the writers in the Christian tradition express it (e.g. Johannes Arndt).

It is, of course, likely to be labelled as a ‘Gnostic’ is this day of trendy ‘physicalist’ theology.

 

[edwest2]

One small difference.

In this source he writes his opinion. He doesn’t write what the Church’s stance on the issue actually is. I have no need to contact him and complain because he has every right to have his opinions on the origin of the world, and his opinion is not contrary to Church teaching, just as theistic evolution is not contrary to Church teaching.

What we need are sources that actually, clearly and objectively state the Church’s stance on the subject. Which I have already provided for everyone’s convenience.

The first question every Catholic should ask is: Why is this brought up so often? The following is from Pope Benedict:

"He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory. "

The word “impossible” is key. So, at best, the Church holds an agnostic position. This is the position I think Catholics should hold in general.

I think it’s appropriate to add that belief in this theory is one of the key foundational arguments against there being a God or gods of any kind as argued by non-theists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Debora123]

Please do not What grannymh writes is accurate Catholic Teaching:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

I straight copied and posted something from Catholic Answers. Granny says it’s missing some critical information, so I advised her to perhaps contact Catholic Answers and let them know they are giving out incomplete, misguided information. That is all.

 

[cornbread_r2]

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory. "

The word “impossible” is key. So, at best, the Church holds an agnostic position. This is the position I think Catholics should hold in general.

If it’s impossible to verify or disprove the ToE, how much more impossible would it be to verify or disprove the existence of an entity which supposedly exists outside time and space? If agnosticism is warranted in the matter of the ToE, wouldn’t agnosticism also be warranted in regards to God’s existence?

 

[buffalo]

If it’s impossible to verify or disprove the ToE, how much more impossible would it be to verify or disprove the existence of an entity which supposedly exists outside time and space? If agnosticism is warranted in the matter of the ToE, wouldn’t agnosticism also be warranted in regards to God’s existence?

No. There are two gods, your BUC (blind unguided chance) and the God of Christianity. The world is intelligible and able to be scientifically studied. The answer is obvious.

 

[edwest2]

If it’s impossible to verify or disprove the ToE, how much more impossible would it be to verify or disprove the existence of an entity which supposedly exists outside time and space? If agnosticism is warranted in the matter of the ToE, wouldn’t agnosticism also be warranted in regards to God’s existence?

The issue is simply this: there are those who very much want the Catholic Church to agree that this theory is a fact as described in the biology textbook. I’ve read that at least a few times in the past here. Second, the Church proclaims with certainty, Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as visitations of the Blessed Virgin, mother of God, and miracles that have happened over the years.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PumpkinSeed]

The bible says God made Adam from dirt. And Eve was made from Adams rib. Obviously to believe this you need tons of faith. I don’t see the problem in believing in evolution. It could just be the way God chose to make life.

 

[buffalo]

The bible says God made Adam from dirt. And Eve was made from Adams rib. Obviously to believe this you need tons of faith. I don’t see the problem in believing in evolution. It could just be the way God chose to make life.

Because ********** is not holding up to scrutiny.

 

[Farsight001]

The first question every Catholic should ask is: Why is this brought up so often? The following is from Pope Benedict:

"He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory. "

The word “impossible” is key. So, at best, the Church holds an agnostic position. This is the position I think Catholics should hold in general.

I think it’s appropriate to add that belief in this theory is one of the key foundational arguments against there being a God or gods of any kind as argued by non-theists.

No. At best Benedict holds an agnostic position on the subject. He was expressing personal opinion, not binding doctrine. He happens to be incorrect, too. Its quite possible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to confirm evolution. It happens all the time.