Is Evolution Compatible With Catholicism?

[no2masters4life]

Indeed. And how many weeks will it take for a cave of volcanic rock and amino acids to create the entire works of Shakespeare?

You mischaracterize evolutiuonary theory. Let me try to debunk your idea as simply as I can.

There is a continuity between Latin, the language of the Roman Empire, and modern French. In fact, modern French is called a romantic language because much of its vocabulary, grammar and syntax derive from Latin.

Please provide as links the names of all the various people between Augustus Caesar and any modern French speaker to prove that Latin morphed into French over the last 2,000 years.

You can’t do it?

 

[twinc]

Let me make this perfectly clear. Go to your Catechism and look up Article 2, Section III, line 100. That is what I believe.

That citation is the whole basis for this thread, and my long defense of science, which I hope to protect from your scandalous attacks.

Where is God in the science of evolution? Ask the Church! They have no trouble with the theory.

no doubt who has the final say on scripture interpretation - any private interpretation by anyone counts for nothing especially to or for or by evolutionists - Pope John Paul II in his message[just that]to PAS was airing his own personal mistaken opinion/view or at best one derived from or by or via the PAS themselves and so really counts for not very much no more or less than that of our present Pope who it seems stated it took millions of years for coal and oil to form and that was why he was partial to evolution theory - guess who advised him wrongly or should have advised him correctly - btw here is what Pius XII really said via Humani Generis Para 5 "if anyone examines the state of affairs outside [and now sadly inside]the Christian fold,he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following.Some Imprudently and Indiscreetly hold that evolution,which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,explains the origins of all things,and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution etc - perhaps someone else would kindly care or dare to quote or check on paras 6,35,36,37,43 - beware of misquotes and individual personal opinions,conjectures and conclusions be they by Pope or peasant and note that Humani Generis is a Church encyclical - twinc

 

[twinc]

no doubt who has the final say on scripture interpretation - any private interpretation by anyone counts for nothing especially to or for or by evolutionists - Pope John Paul II in his message[just that]to PAS was airing his own personal mistaken opinion/view or at best one derived from or by or via the PAS themselves and so really counts for not very much no more or less than that of our present Pope who it seems stated it took millions of years for coal and oil to form and that was why he was partial to evolution theory - guess who advised him wrongly or should have advised him correctly - btw here is what Pius XII really said via Humani Generis Para 5 "if anyone examines the state of affairs outside [and now sadly inside]the Christian fold,he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following.Some Imprudently and Indiscreetly hold that evolution,which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,explains the origins of all things,and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution etc - perhaps someone else would kindly care or dare to quote or check on paras 6,35,36,37,43 - beware of misquotes and individual personal opinions,conjectures and conclusions be they by Pope or peasant and note that Humani Generis is a Church encyclical - twinc

contd[Para 35] - It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which,although they pertain to the positive sciences,are nevertheless.more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith.In fact,not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible.This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts - but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses,having some sort of scientific foundation,in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God,then the demand that they be recognised can in no way be admitted - twinc

 

[no2masters4life]

no doubt who has the final say on scripture interpretation - any private interpretation by anyone counts for nothing especially to or for or by evolutionists - Pope John Paul II in his message[just that]to PAS was airing his own personal mistaken opinion/view or at best one derived from or by or via the PAS themselves and so really counts for not very much no more or less than that of our present Pope who it seems stated it took millions of years for coal and oil to form and that was why he was partial to evolution theory - guess who advised him wrongly or should have advised him correctly - btw here is what Pius XII really said via Humani Generis Para 5 "if anyone examines the state of affairs outside [and now sadly inside]the Christian fold,he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following.Some Imprudently and Indiscreetly hold that evolution,which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,explains the origins of all things,and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution etc - perhaps someone else would kindly care or dare to quote or check on paras 6,35,36,37,43 - beware of misquotes and individual personal opinions,conjectures and conclusions be they by Pope or peasant and note that Humani Generis is a Church encyclical - twinc

Let’s look at what you’ve done here:

1. You’ve slandered two great Popes – that’s “Pope” with a capital P. According to your own Catechism, “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” THIS OFFICE interprets Sacred Scripture, not his private person, much as the Office of the President executes US Policy, not Obama, himself. I’m not sure why you resort to subterfuge and character assassination, but you missed the target on both counts.
2. You’ve grounded your slander in unscientific blather rejected by petroleum geologists worldwide. I’ve asked you for a case study in which a Creationist geologist used Creation Science to find oil in a place that an Evolutionary biologist could not.
3. You run ram-shod over the quotations from Humani Generis that allow for evolution so long as God is the creator of the human soul, and tried using this quotation to eliminate the entire theory from consideration. This is dishonest quote-mining. Here is the full quote:

…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 faithful.

1. Your other paragraphs do not directly, unilaterally damn the theory of evolution, which is the WHOLE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD.

 

[twinc]

Let’s look at what you’ve done here:

1. You’ve slandered two great Popes – that’s “Pope” with a capital P. According to your own Catechism, “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” THIS OFFICE interprets Sacred Scripture, not his private person, much as the Office of the President executes US Policy, not Obama, himself. I’m not sure why you resort to subterfuge and character assassination, but you missed the target on both counts.
2. You’ve grounded your slander in unscientific blather rejected by petroleum geologists worldwide. I’ve asked you for a case study in which a Creationist geologist used Creation Science to find oil in a place that an Evolutionary biologist could not.
3. You run ram-shod over the quotations from Humani Generis that allow for evolution so long as God is the creator of the human soul, and tried using this quotation to eliminate the entire theory from consideration. This is dishonest quote-mining. Here is the full quote:

…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 faithful.

1. Your other paragraphs do not directly, unilaterally damn the theory of evolution, which is the WHOLE BASIS FOR THIS THREAD.

there is nothing wrong with what the Church says or teaches - what is in question is what you say or think she says or teaches for the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid[in 1950]that,in conformity with the present[1950] state of human sciences and sacred theology,research and discussion on the part of men experienced in both fields,take place in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body etc = no mention here about Evolution in general being accepted or acceptable - DNA came after 1950 and Humani Generis - twinc

 

[twinc]

there is nothing wrong with what the Church says or teaches - what is in question is what you say or think she says or teaches for the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid[in 1950]that,in conformity with the present[1950] state of human sciences and sacred theology,research and discussion on the part of men experienced in both fields,take place in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body etc = no mention here about Evolution in general being accepted or acceptable - DNA came after 1950 and Humani Generis - twinc

btw it seems you reject what the Church has advised that we accept the research and discussion undertaken by men experienced in both fields of science and theology since these can only be found for Catholics united and together at www.kolbecenter.org and not at any other organisation - twinc

 

[twinc]

Catholics dont have to really accept anything but the Church says they should accept certain things like the six days of creation in the proper sense being 6 x 24hr days - twinc

In his 1880 encyclical,Arcanum Divinae,Pope Leo XIII gives witness to the Church’s perpetual teaching of a literal six day creation and the creation of woman from man “We record what is to all known,and cannot be doubted by any,that God on the sixth day of creation,having made man from the slime of the earth,and having breathed into his face the breath of life,gave him a companion,whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep”[also see www.scripturecatholic.com] - a meaning of 24 hours for each creation day was ruled permissible as the proper sense of the Hebrew word yom by the Pontifical Biblical Commission/Magisterium in 1909 and also an improper sense of “a certain space of time” which would allow for Augustin’s instant creation. Those who assert that this allowance of the improper sense opens the way for long ages must still make a convincing case from theology and exegesis for overriding the proper sense - the Magisterium is not treating the proper and improper sense as equals - the burden of proof falls entirely upon those who question the consensus of the Fathers,Tradition,Scriptures etc[Keane] - see www.scripturecatholic.com - twinc

 

[samiam1611]

there is nothing wrong with what the Church says or teaches - what is in question is what you say or think she says or teaches for the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid[in 1950]that,in conformity with the present[1950] state of human sciences and sacred theology,research and discussion on the part of men experienced in both fields,take place in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body etc = no mention here about Evolution in general being accepted or acceptable - DNA came after 1950 and Humani Generis - twinc

“It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.HTML

 

[twinc]

“It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.HTML

so what do you offer was the result of their research and discussion - was it not exactly as simul et ex nihilo - twinc

 

[samiam1611]

so what do you offer was the result of their research and discussion - was it not exactly as simul et ex nihilo - twinc

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking…I know some pope said the Big Bang was consistent with the ex nihilo thing…I don’t have it in front of my though, I don’t remember which pope said it or the exact wording…I’ll look into it…is that what you were asking anyway?

 

[no2masters4life]

there is nothing wrong with what the Church says or teaches - what is in question is what you say or think she says or teaches for the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid[in 1950]that,in conformity with the present[1950] state of human sciences and sacred theology,research and discussion on the part of men experienced in both fields,take place in so far as it inquires into the origin of the human body etc = no mention here about Evolution in general being accepted or acceptable - DNA came after 1950 and Humani Generis - twinc

I have quoted the Pope, the catechism, encyclicals… you are just wrong. It CLEARLY states that the Church has no problem with the theory provisionally. It states clearly in the same encyclical you tried to quote-mine!

Stop spreading misinformation. Stop playing games.

 

[no2masters4life]

so what do you offer was the result of their research and discussion - was it not exactly as simul et ex nihilo - twinc

???

Clarification, please.

 

[no2masters4life]

btw it seems you reject what the Church has advised that we accept the research and discussion undertaken by men experienced in both fields of science and theology since these can only be found for Catholics united and together at www.kolbecenter.org and not at any other organisation - twinc

There are scientists at the Vatican, scientists employed at Catholic Universies, scientists who are declaratively Catholic who have published in peer reviewed journals…

The Kolbe Center is a Creationist site, a marginal and weak effort to quote-mine doctrines into an opinion on evolution that is not embraced by the Church. It contains neither good science nor good theology.

 

[samiam1611]

so what do you offer was the result of their research and discussion - was it not exactly as simul et ex nihilo - twinc

Not sure what you’re asking…I will offer this, in the meantime till you can clarify your question…

1. With respect to the creatio ex nihilo, theologians can note that the Big Bang theory does not contradict this doctrine insofar as it can be said that the supposition of an absolute beginning is not scientifically inadmissible.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Hope that helps.

 

[no2masters4life]

In his 1880 encyclical,Arcanum Divinae,Pope Leo XIII gives witness to the Church’s perpetual teaching of a literal six day creation and the creation of woman from man “We record what is to all known,and cannot be doubted by any,that God on the sixth day of creation,having made man from the slime of the earth,and having breathed into his face the breath of life,gave him a companion,whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep”[also see www.scripturecatholic.com]

• a meaning of 24 hours for each creation day was ruled permissible as the proper sense of the Hebrew word yom by the Pontifical Biblical Commission/Magisterium in 1909 and also an improper sense of “a certain space of time” which would allow for Augustin’s instant creation. Those who assert that this allowance of the improper sense opens the way for long ages must still make a convincing case from theology and exegesis for overriding the proper sense - the Magisterium is not treating the proper and improper sense as equals - the burden of proof falls entirely upon those who question the consensus of the Fathers,Tradition,Scriptures etc[Keane] - see www.scripturecatholic.com - twinc

First of all, you’re about 100 years out of sync. A 6x24 hour creation is not taught as a dead letter. Read your Catechism! What are the four branches of interpretation open to the Magisterium!! The word “day” appears in parables and psalms and is not meant literally in all instances.

Moreover, your use of the words “proper” and “improper” do not appear in that citation with a correct understanding. You’re trying to say that the Church doesn’t allow for a wide flexibility on the meaning of Genesis. That’s just not the case. If you’re Catholic, you will find this in your Catechism under “interpreting scripture:” The Church has several ways to do so.

Trying to bundle what you think into an esoteric dogma is your dirtiest trick yet.

 

[samiam1611]

i believe 7 days the earth was created, but you gotta remember something, how long is a day when the bible was written? i mean we dont even use the old calendar anymore, so 2011 isnt even 2011 if you use the old calendar., but god created us in his image, he didnt say we were guuuu, and genesis, says we were man, and points how creation happened.

“Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.”

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[minkymurph]

I have quoted the Pope, the catechism, encyclicals… you are just wrong. It CLEARLY states that the Church has no problem with the theory provisionally. It states clearly in the same encyclical you tried to quote-mine!

Stop spreading misinformation. Stop playing games.

This puts things in a nutshell… What twinc has stated is just wrong, it is misinformation, twinc’s posts suggest it is some kind of a game because of the way they are written, and everyone reading this thread will know it.

Personal opinions cannot be shoehorned into Catholic dogma. In addition, and it doesn’t matter how much someone asserts others must believe something. If they don’t, there’s nothing they can do about it. Of course some may threaten eternal damnation as consequence of considering or accepting certain things. However, the longer I live the more I realize I fear the judgement of men more than the judgement of God.

 

[no2masters4life]

This puts things in a nutshell… What twinc has stated is just wrong, it is misinformation, twinc’s posts suggest it is some kind of a game because of the way they are written, and everyone reading this thread will know it.

Personal opinions cannot be shoehorned into Catholic dogma. In addition, and it doesn’t matter how much someone asserts others must believe something. If they don’t, there’s nothing they can do about it. Of course some may threaten eternal damnation as consequence of considering or accepting certain things. However, the longer I live the more I realize I fear the judgement of men more than the judgement of God.

I agree!

I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s later arguments, and Pope Benedict’s 2009 insight into the exegesis. It seems the Church looks at evolution provisionally, but does not discount it or claim it anathema. And that’s what I said last week when I assured our OP that there was no conflict between Church teachings and the TOE so long as Adam and Eve were special creations, that God bestows the soul, that Christ is King… all she wrote.

Debunking the mischaracterizations of the theory, or misrepresentations of Church teaching, is something I struggle to do with courtesy. I’ve been on this thread as a watchdog, trying to correct the hearsay arguments, bogus links, nonsense, fundamentalist theology and bad science. To my shame, I’ve gotten a mean tone in my voice. I think I’ll let the Creationists have the last word and keep 'em in my prayers.

It’s been a pleasure. Be a friend if you like.

N2M4L

 

[twinc]

I agree!

I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s later arguments, and Pope Benedict’s 2009 insight into the exegesis. It seems the Church looks at evolution provisionally, but does not discount it or claim it anathema. And that’s what I said last week when I assured our OP that there was no conflict between Church teachings and the TOE so long as Adam and Eve were special creations, that God bestows the soul, that Christ is King… all she wrote.

Debunking the mischaracterizations of the theory, or misrepresentations of Church teaching, is something I struggle to do with courtesy. I’ve been on this thread as a watchdog, trying to correct the hearsay arguments, bogus links, nonsense, fundamentalist theology and bad science. To my shame, I’ve gotten a mean tone in my voice. I think I’ll let the Creationists have the last word and keep 'em in my prayers.

It’s been a pleasure. Be a friend if you like.

N2M4L

Vatican 1 Canon 1 clause 5 states Evolution is totally forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics and saint Pope Pius X stated that Modernism is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies and its chief doctrine is Evolution - twinc

 

[no2masters4life]

Vatican 1 Canon 1 clause 5 states Evolution is totally forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics and saint Pope Pius X stated that Modernism is a heresy and in fact the synthesis of all heresies and its chief doctrine is Evolution - twinc

One more thing, Twinkie. When you make a point you need to quote it and paste it, because your credibility is zero. Highlight the word “evolution” in Vatican 1 Canon 1 clause 5, please, and then, after you can’t find it, compare it to Vatican 2’s significant redress without emptying your mind of punctuation-less blather.

Make it very plain that you are after truth and not hoping to sow confusion. Try not to run your “seances” together, and try to respond to your critics in a reasoned way, and you may yet succeed in redefining the Church’s stated position on Evolutionary Theory, which is, that it is not in conflict with church Teaching when understood provisionally.

I don’t want to be a mewling Creationist zealot who doesn’t care what the Church really states on the subject of evolution, or confuse evolution with cosmological arguments, but there might be somebody out there waiting for you to make a good, solid, earnest point without resorting to quote mining, subterfuge, character assassination, and even blasphemy… After all, convincing the rest of us of the righteousness of your point of view will be incredibly difficult in light of the truth, but you’re welcome to try.

Now wait for it…

“The Church has stated there is no conflict with evolutionary theory provided it is understood provisionally. Please review the relevant posts.”

Get to work, Twinks.

N2M4L