Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by PhilVaz
When Benedict XVI says in his commentary on the Genesis story that it “does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are” and that we need to “grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason” is Benedict denying the literal historical sense of Genesis 1-3 and thus violating the 1909 PBC statements?
You are mistaken. His Holiness did not say this. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote it. You are confusing the office of Pope with that of Cardinal. His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, for example, plainly and authoritively stated in *Arcane Divinae Sapientiae *that:

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.
Posted by PhilVaz
When the International Theological Commission endorsed by Ratzinger in 2004 says that macroevolution is “vritually certain” and that “physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage” are they violating the 1909 PBC statements?
This is a consensus opinion of a group of theologians and does not have Magisterial status. They are merely reporting their received understanding of the speculations of science. The quote from Pope Leo XIII above, as just one Magisterial example, would appear to answer your question.
Posted by PhilVaz
When the Catechism says “the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God” and that “many scientific studies have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” and that the meaning of our origins “goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences” and that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work’ " (CCC 159, 283-284, 337, etc) is the Catechism violating the 1909 PBC statements?
There is no obvious problem with either the reference to scientific matters or to that of Faith with this quote. Evolutionists would interpret it as supporting their position. Creationists would interpret it as supporting theirs. The Catholic position appears to be that as there was no unanimous agreement amongst the Fathers on whether the six days held a symbolic value or not, it is an open question. There appears to be, however, unanimous agreement amongst the Fathers, that the period of Creation took no longer than six days.
 
Posted by Orogeny
I have read that article several times. Did you read the document I linked to?
Yes, thank you. I have read it before and I re-read it again. The fact remains that it is not Magisterial Teaching, which is the subject of this thread.

As for your last post I have already stated that I find personal attacks on people contemptible. This thread is intended to be strictly about Catholic principles, not childish personality conflicts that could lead to sinful remarks being made.

If you are a geologist, Orogeny, I’m sure you are straining at the leash to talk geology - which I agree is a fascinating subject, so good for you - but it does not fall under the purpose that I posted this particular thread for. Sorry.
 
**FAITH & REASON **- next section
(Kolbe Center Articles Section www.kolbecenter.org )

Theistic evolutionists often claim that paragraph IV allows them leeway for their belief in biological macroevolution because there was not a strict consensus of the Fathers in relation to the Creation period consisting of six, twenty four hour days. Whilst the overwhelming majority of the Fathers did believe in the distinction of six, natural days a minority of Fathers believed that the six days represented a certain space of time, or hierarchy, of instantaneous Creation as revealed to the angels. Theistic evolutionists are mistaken in this regard because none of the Fathers believed that the Creation period was of a duration any longer than six, natural days. The sought for consensus lay in that respect and constitutes the traditional belief of the Church throughout the ages; a belief proclaimed by Popes, Doctors, Scholastics and the humblest peasant.

Likewise, paragraph VIII is also claimed by theistic evolutionists to allow leeway for an unorthodox belief in billion year ages for the Earth, an absolutely necessary requirement for the evolutionary concept within the natural sciences. It is clearly the consensus of the Fathers that Creation took no longer than six, natural days and so the claim is without Patristic foundation and therefore invalid. Furthermore, Kolbe Center Advisory Council member Robert Sungenis, Ph.D, tells us that:

*…the word “day” is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM (“days”), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means “many.” In other words, the translation says “long time” because it IS a long time. It is “many days” in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.

As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day…the second day…the third day…and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which “day” preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus’ Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).

The most conclusive evidence that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase “and there was evening and morning,” which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of “evening and morning” in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of “evening and morning” in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).

There are some cases in which the words “morning” or “evening” appear separately with the word “day,” some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages “evening and morning” are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.

If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (“let them be for days and for years”) or Genesis 3:14 (“dust shall you eat all the days of your life”). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.

As an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures.* [4]

Although strictly speaking the Church has not issued a dogmatic statement specifically condemning the idea of biological macroevolution the entertaining of such an idea is implicitly ruled out by…
 
I’m grateful to Dr. Alec MacAndrew (physicist) and Dr. Tim (Orogeny the geologist) for airing their complaints as scientists, which in my opinion are in accord with Pope Pius XII statement, “These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error." (HUMANI GENERIS, no. 28).
 
…As for your last post I have already stated that I find personal attacks on people contemptible. …
I was going to keep my mouth shut (or fingers still) since Phil, Tim, and Alec are far better at it than me (good job guys!) 👍
BUT
What they said do not amount to personal attacks.

A personal attack would be to say "Mr. Jones is foolish therefore anything he says is foolish” but merely pointing out that Jones says foolish things is not a personal attack it may in fact be the truth.

I’m sure the folk at the Kolbe Center mean well and while I’m not qualified to speak to their theology, some of the stuff they produce as “science” does not pass muster.

I have seen certain anti Christian skeptics even using Kolbe Center material in general attacks against the faith “Hey, look at what those wacky Catholics believe.”

PoG I see that you are new here and can’t be expected to be aware of the many, many, many……(did I mention many?) times that this subject has been raised. A lot of thought and debate has gone into it so don’t be surprised if something that is new to you is old hat here and is quickly dismissed.
 
You confound me. I know you don’t like their science, but how do direct quotes from prior Popes and references to constant Catholic teaching cause you to speak so poorly of them?
Because quote mining is a tool that can be used to make just about any point. The reason I frequently return to Cardinal Ratzinger’s paper is that I believe him to be a very devout, intelligent individual who does have the theologic background to understand what previous Popes have taught and he still allows for evolution. Do you believe that the link I posted is contrary to constant Catholic teaching and, if so, what does that say about Ratzinger?

Peace

Tim
 
I’m grateful to Dr. Alec MacAndrew (physicist) and Dr. Tim (Orogeny the geologist) for airing their complaints as scientists, which in my opinion are in accord with Pope Pius XII statement, “These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error." (HUMANI GENERIS, no. 28).
Well, thank you wildleafblower. Unfortunately, I must confess that I am not a “Dr”, just a “BS”.

Peace

Tim
 
Because quote mining is a tool that can be used to make just about any point. The reason I frequently return to Cardinal Ratzinger’s paper is that I believe him to be a very devout, intelligent individual who does have the theologic background to understand what previous Popes have taught and he still allows for evolution. Do you believe that the link I posted is contrary to constant Catholic teaching and, if so, what does that say about Ratzinger?

Peace

Tim
Right - and we are to take these quotes in context of all of Tradition. Quote mining goes both ways.

I am sincerely trying to reconcile the truth of Divine Revelation with that of our limited scientific observations and theories, and when reconciled without bias I will accept it. This of course has not yet been done…
 
Yes, thank you. I have read it before and I re-read it again. The fact remains that it is not Magisterial Teaching, which is the subject of this thread.
So do you think it contradicts magesterial teaching? If so, what does that say about the authors and sponsor?
As for your last post I have already stated that I find personal attacks on people contemptible. This thread is intended to be strictly about Catholic principles, not childish personality conflicts that could lead to sinful remarks being made.
Which is it, Catholic priniples or magesterial teaching?

I commented on a person you refer to as an expert. My point is that you shouldn’t use people like Berthault as an expert in either geology or theology. Very bad approach to apologetics.

And he is a crank, by the way.

Peace

Tim
 
Ohhhhhh??? Then you are not qualified to speak on these matters? 🙂
Only if a Ph.D. is required to speak. If so, I know Alec is qualified, but I am not aware of many if anyone else.

Peace

Tim

ps - I am a professional geologist, though.😉

pps - As far as being qualified to speak, I have taken freshman geology, so I am certainly qualified to see the problems with Berthault!
 
Right - and we are to take these quotes in context of all of Tradition. Quote mining goes both ways.

I am sincerely trying to reconcile the truth of Divine Revelation with that of our limited scientific observations and theories, and when reconciled without bias I will accept it. This of course has not yet been done…
That doesn’t answer my question, Buffalo. Do you think that Cardinal Ratzinger approved a paper that is contrary to magesterial teaching?

Peace

Tim
 
That doesn’t answer my question, Buffalo. Do you think that Cardinal Ratzinger approved a paper that is contrary to magesterial teaching?

Peace

Tim
My post got corrupted. I will try to reconstuct below.

In principle I agree with his paper. He is leaving an opening that I believe will eventually be totally reconciled. I will note a few points:
  1. Secondly, the creation accounts in Genesis make it clear that man is not created as an isolated individual:
    God placed the first human beings in relation to one another, each with a partner of the other sex. The Bible affirms that man exists in relation with other persons, with God, with the world, and with himself. According to this conception, man is not an isolated individual but a person – an essentially relational being. Far from entailing a pure actualism that would deny its permanent ontological status, the fundamentally relational character of the imago Dei itself constitutes its ontological structure and the basis for its exercise of freedom and responsibility.
  2. **Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. **Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains, it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.
I have maintained and the bolded language seems to back me that God could have inserted Adam and Eve in the timeline whever He wished regardless of what may have been happening on the earth at the time.

Now he is in conflict with earlier magisterial teaching when he speaks of polygenism.
 
Bottom line - are we now stating that the theology is evolving too? If so, do they negate the past teachings?
I think so. I think that the good Cardinal recognized that there is truth in science, even if it is not the whole story. If that is the case, one cannot just reject the evidence for evolution or an old earth or the big bang. If the Church once taught that the earth is flat, for example, then it was in error with that teaching. I don’t think that it would be right for that error to continue to be taught.

The fact of the matter is that science cannot give us the entire story, but neither can theology. Both are necessary if one is searching for the truth.
I have maintained and the bolded language seems to back me that God could have inserted Adam and Eve in the timeline whever He wished regardless of what may have been happening on the earth at the time.
Now he is in conflict with earlier magisterial teaching when he speaks of polygenism.
Or, as you noted, God could have inserted a population of Adams and Eves. Is Ratzinger out of line with this claim?

Peace

Tim
 
Well, thank you wildleafblower. Unfortunately, I must confess that I am not a “Dr”, just a “BS”.

Peace

Tim
Correction noted 🙂

I’m grateful to Dr. Alec MacAndrew (physicist) and Tim (Orogeny the geologist) for airing their complaints as scientists, which in my opinion are in accord with Pope Pius XII statement, “These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error." (HUMANI GENERIS, no. 28).

Ah, what joy it will bring me later today when I add a Nobel laureate with a strong voice, who is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN, to our list of scientists vs that of Kolbe Center’s Advisory Council for the Study of Creation.
 
Or, as you noted, God could have inserted a population of Adams and Eves. Is Ratzinger out of line with this claim?

Peace

Tim
Yes. Dogma of the Church states we are all descended from one pair.
 
Yes. Dogma of the Church states we are all descended from one pair.
So, if Pope Benedict doesn’t reject his former position, does that mean that he is heretical? Would that impact his standing as a Pope?

Peace

Tim
 
So, if Pope Benedict doesn’t reject his former position, does that mean that he is heretical? Would that impact his standing as a Pope?

Peace

Tim
Is he speaking infallibly? Are the translations correct? Are we understanding him correctly? Did he make mistake? Was he ill advised?

All of these would matter of course.

If the Pope maintains this position he will have to reconcile it with the dogma. Do you agree?
 
Is he speaking infallibly? Are the translations correct? Are we understanding him correctly? Did he make mistake? Was he ill advised?

All of these would matter of course.

If the Pope maintains this position he will have to reconcile it with the dogma. Do you agree?
If he doesn’t, even though he obviously has the opportunity to do so, does that make him heretical?

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top