H
- Status
S
steveandersen
Guest
and you’ll find no dogma regarding evolution either
Like I said the Church knows better.
You don’t hang your faith on something that a guy in a lab coat (or with a telescope) might upset next week
That is how our fundamentalist friends and the folks at the Kolbe Center wind up doing mental gymnastics to shoehorn the ever expanding data set into their preconceived solution.
and I’ll use any arguement I please, thank you.
I have posted my personal reconciliation many times in many threads
You just don’t agree with it
And that’s OK. It’s my soul after all not yours.
Science can’t address the supernatural nor can evolutionary theory touch on individuals rather than populations. Biology is therefore never going to talk about original sin or Adam & Eve.
Scripture tells us (whether you take it literally or figuratively) that the creation of man was actively touched by the Divine so it would be foolish to look for a natural explanation since there, by definition, isn’t one.
Therefore I stick to my original premise. Since they can’t talk about the same things, there is no conflict between the two.
apples and oranges
(or sheep and goats some might say)
S
steveandersen
Guest
no reason to be snippy Alec
H
hecd2
Guest
Steve,
I am fed up by instances where those who do not have the slightest knowledge of science (indeed less than no knowledge, because their misconeption of what the science says is laughably wrong) and who cannot be bothered to do the work needed to educate themselves in the subject, go on for paragraph after didactic paragraph about how they can see some obvious and fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, or consensus cosmology, or general relativity or whatever it happens to be, a fundamental flaw that the scientists who have studied and researched the subject all their working lives are too stupid or too evil to see. In the circumstances, I think my rebuke was quite mild.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
steveandersen
Guest
Yes, I know it can be frustrating seeing the same “problems” with evolution mentioned over and over and over and … again.
So I’m sorry I got snippy with you about being snippy.
But, for me at least, educating and winning hearts and minds is very important.
it is important because
(1) As Aquinas taught knowledge and understanding of teh natural world are part of general revelation and therefore good for their own sake
(2) Christians who misrepresent science do us all a disservice and set apologetics back
(3) I’m a pain in the neck, over educated, pedantic sort.
And I don’t think that you can educate or win over by being aggressive or negative. Especially in the case of a poster like DustinsDad; he was new and didn’t have a history of repeat postings of the same tired old stuff. If he had been present on one of the many…many etc:banghead: other threads on the subject and was still posting such nonsense I might have had a different approach.
I don’t know if it is a world wide phenomenon or just a problem in he US but the state of science education makes me weep.:crying:
P
PoG
Guest
Of course it matters. It matters greatly. We are obliged to give our assent to Magisterial statements even if they do not qualify as de fide. The closer to de fide they are, the more certain our assent must be.
It doesn’t matter if Ott has not listed the miraculous physical bodily creation of Adam as being de fide. Does he give an opinion on its theological status? What is it? Other great theologians have. For example, the famous German theologian Matthias Scheeben, in his Dogmatica, Book III, condemned the idea of human evolution as being heretical. And it appears to fulfill the conditions for a de fide belief as laid down by Vatican II. See the following reference:
rtforum.org/lt/lt98.html
Yes I believe so. The Special Creation of man in regard to his physical body as well as his soul has always been the belief of the Church. As far as when God created man no particular date is inferred but it was the unanimous belief of the Fathers that it occured within six natural days of Creation. A few believed that all of Creation was instantaneous. The majority opinion was that man was formed on the sixth natural day. Creation within six natural days has always been the belief of the Church. This would also satisfy Vatican II’s criteria for *de fide *belief as far as I can tell.
It is very noticeable that your arguments rest solely on the private opinion of yourself or others. Where are the Magisterial statements that contend against the Magisterial Teaching that I am presenting.
P.S. I thought Fr. Fessio’s interview on CA radio went very well. It’s definitely worth a listen. I don’t think it was quite what you expected according to your comments near the beginning of the thread, was it Phil?
B
buffalo
Guest
I do not agree. Are you limiting God to what He can tell us through Divine Revelation? I think not.a
Therefore I stick to my original premise. Since they can’t talk about the same things, there is no conflict between the two.
)
Divine Revelation can speak about any truth there is, including science for they all come from the same God.
B
buffalo
Guest
And you do the same when you lift verses out of the Bible out of context to denigrate it.
To truly solve this we all must avoid this. Scripture is to be interpreted in context. Agreed?
B
buffalo
Guest
One thing I would like to point out.Yes, I know it can be frustrating seeing the same “problems” with evolution mentioned over and over and over and … again.
So I’m sorry I got snippy with you about being snippy.
But, for me at least, educating and winning hearts and minds is very important.
it is important because
(1) As Aquinas taught knowledge and understanding of teh natural world are part of general revelation and therefore good for their own sake
(2) Christians who misrepresent science do us all a disservice and set apologetics back
(3) I’m a pain in the neck, over educated, pedantic sort.
And I don’t think that you can educate or win over by being aggressive or negative. Especially in the case of a poster like DustinsDad; he was new and didn’t have a history of repeat postings of the same tired old stuff. If he had been present on one of the many…many etc:banghead: other threads on the subject and was still posting such nonsense I might have had a different approach.
I don’t know if it is a world wide phenomenon or just a problem in he US but the state of science education makes me weep.:crying:
Imagine two 1,000 piece puzzles on two different tables. We only have available to us a number of pieces, but not the whole 1,000. Somehow a few pieces of one puzzle got mixed in with the other.
Now the person that is assembling that puzzle will try and try and try to fit those extra pieces into this puzzle even though they don’t belog. Why? Because he makes a fundamental mistake. He assumes they belong in that puzzle.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I’m limiting not what God can tell us but our understanding of what He tells us.
Precisely
Science is the tool we use to understand general revelation
Theology is the tool we use to understand special revelation
They compliment each other
There is nothing wrong with the revelation
Just the human-made tools we have available to grasp them.
B
buffalo
Guest
A breakthrough. :bounce: We agree! That has been my point all along.
So we have to work harder to make sure our science is not in error with Divine Revelation.
S
steveandersen
Guest
That can’t be right!
Holy Smokes how did that happen? Goodness, I thought it was an awfully cold day.
Let’s start over again.
You’re wrong and I don’t like the way your mother dresses you!
B
buffalo
Guest
Mommy, he is looking at me!!!That can’t be right!
Holy Smokes how did that happen? Goodness, I thought it was an awfully cold day.
Let’s start over again.
You’re wrong and I don’t like the way your mother dresses you!
W
wildleafblower
Guest
For the record Alec, your remark in message 181 didn’t seem to bother me or the three, third grade girls that I help with algebra. They are beginning to understand how frustrating it must be for scientists to have to repeat things over and over again to ADULTS. As we know, children are extremely perceptive.
They are learning about science and loving it. I should mention that each child is different in this respect - one loves God, one doesn’t know about God, and the third likes gummy bears the best! And they all agree that you are reeeeeeeeallly smart.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
First chance to get back on here since last weekend - alot has gone on since then. Let me try to catch up a bit and offer a few posts -
Science can’t explain the Resurrection either - shall we refer to it as the “Resurrection Myth” from now on? Might sound strange to believers out there, but don’t think modernists are leaving the Resurrection alone - not for a second. It’s all up for grabs.
More to come…
DustinsDad
Not familiar with the term “natural theology”. Is that theology that rejects the supernatural? Then it should be made hay of.
Sense knowledge is possible of course - so are errors in theory’s. Science is contantly correcting itself on what it “knew” before. And of course there are times when our sense-knowledge fails us…some of those times we call miracles.
Science can’t explain the Resurrection either - shall we refer to it as the “Resurrection Myth” from now on? Might sound strange to believers out there, but don’t think modernists are leaving the Resurrection alone - not for a second. It’s all up for grabs.
More to come…
DustinsDad
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Lack of facts and logic to back it up.
How so? Elaborate please. Modernity can help us in some ways - better medicine to relieve suffering, better gadgets to make us more comfortable, etc. But I’m curious as to how you see “modernity” (whatever you are defining this as) as making us more holy and helping us get to heaven? How do you see “modernity” helping us to better know, love and serve the Lord?
Uh, psssst - the Church was founded by a Hebrew and His Hebrew Apostles.
Aside from once again flying in the face of common sense and logic and all available evidence from history and Tradition - you have now done damage to Church teaching on Original Sin. Which leads to the ruin of most other teachings - our understanding of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ not the least of them. Baptism another.
More to come…
DustinsDad
D
DustinsDad
Guest
You mean to put forth the theory that the Jewish folks - and Christians included - “forgot” that Adam wasn’t an individual?
And we’re all gonna take the modernists’ word for this right?
And as a side note - I’m sure the early Christians just “forgot” the Christ was merely a philosopher, and His “resurrection” was merely symbolic language that really meant His “teachings” remain in the lives of Christians, and this is the means by which he lives on “through us”…but the resurrection didn’t physically occur. Obviously - since science rejects a man rising from the dead and only simple minded 13th Century type Catholics accept such mythological tales.
Corinthians 15 is not a commentary on Genesis - so it would be obtuse to expect of it the qualities expected of a commentary. Such as paintaking analysis of the nuances of the words in the text commented on. Don’t expect of St.Paul what he does not profess to give
I will take from St. Paul what the Church - Divinely protected and guided - gives me from St. Paul, since they have that authority. It’s a good thing that what they give me has been handed on in tact from Christ and the Apostles - and makes perfect logic and is entirely reasonable. Stand firm and hold fast my friend - the whims and excuses of your ever-shifting modernist gobblity-gook sounds sillier than you probably realize.
I would add what I heard years ago from I don’t know where - the faith is entirely reasonable…but you can’t get there on reason alone. Think about it.
Peace in Christ - really!
DustinsDad
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Not necessarily stupid or evil. Blind and deceived would be a better choice of words…
DustinsDad
P
PoG
Guest
Continuation from post #174
FAITH & REASON
(Kolbe Center articles section)
It is claimed that if the Church did indeed oppose Darwin’s notion as being dangerous to the Faith then the book would have been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. That it was not, apparently, placed on the Index was surely a mistake that has led to serious ramifications and confusion. The reason why it was not placed on the Index is currently a matter of debate and speculation. It is a subject to which serious research must be afforded. What is known with certainty is that, for whatever reason, many late nineteenth and twentieth century writers whose tracts were obviously dangerous to the Faith were not put on the Index. These included such figures as Marx, Freud, Hitler, so on and so forth. It appears that at this time there was such an explosion of theologically dangerous and immoral publications that the Congregation and its censors could not physically cope with the deluge. We do know for certain that Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who expressed, and is considered to be one of the originators of, evolutionary theory in his book Zoonomia (or The Laws of Organic Life), 1794, was placed on the Index in 1817. His work was extremely influential amongst the more “enlightened” souls of Europe and America and it is worth noting that he describes the Almighty in occult Masonic terms as “The Great Architect”.[13] Virtually all the biographers of Charles Darwin acknowledge the strong influence of Erasmus Darwin’s scientific ideas upon his more celebrated grandson. We also know for certain that a number of Catholic authors influenced by Darwin’s General Theory had their books placed on the Index and submitted to the Holy Inquisition, condemning and withdrawing their own works and erroneous opinions in this regard.
Rev. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D, was given permission by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Holy Office, to research documents held in its archives in regard to evolutionary theory at the end of the nineteenth century. It was found that books written by Catholics promoting the idea of biological evolution, particularly in regard to our first parents, were officially condemned and placed on the Index. Such condemnations are attached to the works of St. George Jackson Mivart, including his *Genesis of Species *(1871) and Lessons From Nature (1876); Rev. Fr. Caverni, De’ Nuovi Studi della Filosofia, Discorsi (1878); and the Rev. Fr. Leroy, O.P., L’évolution Restreinte aux Espèces Organiques, whose book was reported to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office as upholding the opinions of Darwin and placed on the Index in 1895. [14] The reaction of the authors whose work suffered condemnation is interesting to note. On the one hand, Rev. Fr. Leroy, Deo gratias, submitted his own will meekly to the perennial teaching of the Church. Besides withdrawing, as far as was in his power, his book from circulation the admirable Dominican priest had published a public retraction in the French newspaper, Le Monde, dated March 4th, 1895:
FAITH & REASON
(Kolbe Center articles section)
It is claimed that if the Church did indeed oppose Darwin’s notion as being dangerous to the Faith then the book would have been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. That it was not, apparently, placed on the Index was surely a mistake that has led to serious ramifications and confusion. The reason why it was not placed on the Index is currently a matter of debate and speculation. It is a subject to which serious research must be afforded. What is known with certainty is that, for whatever reason, many late nineteenth and twentieth century writers whose tracts were obviously dangerous to the Faith were not put on the Index. These included such figures as Marx, Freud, Hitler, so on and so forth. It appears that at this time there was such an explosion of theologically dangerous and immoral publications that the Congregation and its censors could not physically cope with the deluge. We do know for certain that Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, who expressed, and is considered to be one of the originators of, evolutionary theory in his book Zoonomia (or The Laws of Organic Life), 1794, was placed on the Index in 1817. His work was extremely influential amongst the more “enlightened” souls of Europe and America and it is worth noting that he describes the Almighty in occult Masonic terms as “The Great Architect”.[13] Virtually all the biographers of Charles Darwin acknowledge the strong influence of Erasmus Darwin’s scientific ideas upon his more celebrated grandson. We also know for certain that a number of Catholic authors influenced by Darwin’s General Theory had their books placed on the Index and submitted to the Holy Inquisition, condemning and withdrawing their own works and erroneous opinions in this regard.
Rev. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D, was given permission by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Holy Office, to research documents held in its archives in regard to evolutionary theory at the end of the nineteenth century. It was found that books written by Catholics promoting the idea of biological evolution, particularly in regard to our first parents, were officially condemned and placed on the Index. Such condemnations are attached to the works of St. George Jackson Mivart, including his *Genesis of Species *(1871) and Lessons From Nature (1876); Rev. Fr. Caverni, De’ Nuovi Studi della Filosofia, Discorsi (1878); and the Rev. Fr. Leroy, O.P., L’évolution Restreinte aux Espèces Organiques, whose book was reported to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office as upholding the opinions of Darwin and placed on the Index in 1895. [14] The reaction of the authors whose work suffered condemnation is interesting to note. On the one hand, Rev. Fr. Leroy, Deo gratias, submitted his own will meekly to the perennial teaching of the Church. Besides withdrawing, as far as was in his power, his book from circulation the admirable Dominican priest had published a public retraction in the French newspaper, Le Monde, dated March 4th, 1895:
A similar retraction was humbly offered by another Catholic author promoting Darwin’s evolutionary biological hypothesis. J.A. Zahm, a Professor at the American Notre Dame University suffered his book *Evolution and Dogma *to be censured by the Holy Office. In a letter published in The Fortnightly Review, January 1900, p.37, he pleaded:
- Status