Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PhilVaz]

I’ll just add one more comment since I’ve said enough. I don’t get this going back to earlier magisterial documents and dismissing statements of recent Popes (whether or not they are “magisterial”, whether or not it was before or after they became Pope) when it is clear Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all accept an ancient earth and evolution (at least tentatively), and they have no problem reconciling these facts (somehow) with faith.

Again, Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on the “six days” and the science of Genesis and the early Fathers:

“…as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists…Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood.” (Ott, page 92)

“As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific…The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.” (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Again, Ott is not a Pope, but he lays out all the magisterial documents on every theological issue and comes to the conclusion above. If anyone knows Catholic dogma, it is Ott. So I take it the Kolbe Center thinks Ott is wrong and thinks it knows dogma better than Ott, and better than the modern Popes.

Phil P

 

[buffalo]

If he doesn’t, even though he obviously has the opportunity to do so, does that make him heretical?

Peace

Tim

If anyone, pope or otherwise cleaves away from the truth of Catholicism and Divine Revelation then yes he would be a heretic. I am not saying the Pope is a heretic, let me be clear.

Do you yourself think he has not accounted for this particular dogma? If this truth has already been proclaimed and constantly taught what do we say about someone who dissents?

 

[buffalo]

I’ll just add one more comment since I’ve said enough. I don’t get this going back to earlier magisterial documents and dismissing statements of recent Popes (whether or not they are “magisterial”, whether or not it was before or after they became Pope) when it is clear Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all accept an ancient earth and evolution (at least tentatively), and they have no problem reconciling these facts (somehow) with faith.

Again, Ludwig Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on the “six days” and the science of Genesis and the early Fathers:

“…as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists…Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood.” (Ott, page 92)

“As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific…The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God’s work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis – opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.” (Ott, page 93, cf. Exod 20:8)

Again, Ott is not a Pope, but he lays out all the magisterial documents on every theological issue and comes to the conclusion above. If anyone knows Catholic dogma, it is Ott. So I take it the Kolbe Center thinks Ott is wrong and thinks it knows dogma better than Ott, and better than the modern Popes.

Phil P

So the church got it wrong on preternatural gifts and Eve coming from Adam?

 

[Orogeny]

Do you yourself think he has not accounted for this particular dogma? If this truth has already been proclaimed and constantly taught what do we say about someone who dissents?

Yes, I do think that he has accounted for this particular dogma. There had to be a first. It could have been a couple within a population that was then subsequently ensouled. I don’t know. I will say that Pope Benedict clearly understands this from a theological standpoint much better that I do and I trust him (along with Pope John Paul II) to correctly interpret the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

This entire discussion goes back to the point of trying to prove that one cannot accept evolution based on past teachings of the Church. I say that the Church allows us to accept evolution as valid and still be Catholic. I would suggest that the Kolbe Center would disagree with me and the Church. I say this based on their constant attempts to prove that the Church doesn’t allow us to accept the science by using quotes from previous popes, ignoring the popes who have been in place during the time when the science behind evolution has made leaps and bounds. Quoting a pope from a previous century on matters of science is not a convincing argument to me.

Peace

Tim

 

[PoG]

Posted by PhilVaz
Again, Ott is not a Pope, but he lays out all the magisterial documents on every theological issue and comes to the conclusion above. If anyone knows Catholic dogma, it is Ott.

If he posited ideas that are contrary to the presupposed literal historical sense of Holy Scripture backed by the unanimous belief of the Fathers of the Church, and previous Magisterial statements of the Holy See, he is quite obviously mistaken in that regard.

It appears that you yourself, Philvaz, believe that man somehow descends biologically from lesser creatures, perhaps beginning with a single cell life form billions of years ago. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

How do you personally reconcile this against the unanimous belief of the Fathers that the period of Creation took no longer than six, natural days?

How do you reconcile this faith that man had non-human ancestors with the Authoritive Teaching of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII that, he stated, was well known to all and could not be doubted by any?

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.

The same questions apply to other posters who believe in macroevolutionary processes. I am very curious as to how you can reconcile these speculations with the Authoritive Teaching of the Faith.

 

[PoG]

Posted by Orogeny
Yes, I do think that he has accounted for this particular dogma. There had to be a first. It could have been a couple within a population that was then subsequently ensouled. I don’t know. I will say that Pope Benedict clearly understands this from a theological standpoint much better that I do and I trust him (along with Pope John Paul II) to correctly interpret the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

This entire discussion goes back to the point of trying to prove that one cannot accept evolution based on past teachings of the Church. I say that the Church allows us to accept evolution as valid and still be Catholic. I would suggest that the Kolbe Center would disagree with me and the Church. I say this based on their constant attempts to prove that the Church doesn’t allow us to accept the science by using quotes from previous popes, ignoring the popes who have been in place during the time when the science behind evolution has made leaps and bounds. Quoting a pope from a previous century on matters of science is not a convincing argument to me.

But Orogeny, polygenism is an heretical notion. You state that you don’t know. But you should know if you have been following the discussion. You state that Popes are being quoted on matters of science. You are greatly mistaken again. They are being quoted on matters of Faith.

Please consider very carefully what His Holiness Pope Leo XIII authoritatively taught, as shown in my previous post, and let me know how you can possibly reconcile a speculation that “it could have been a couple within a population that was then subsequently ensouled” with the Magisterial Teaching on the matter.

 

[hecd2]

Dear PhilVaz, hecd2 and any future contributors to this thread,

Before we go any further I would like to make the point that if you wish me to respond to your posts please note that I find a blase attitude and verbal attacks, denigration of people, character assassinations, and so on extremely boorish, tiresome and unbecoming of anyone, especially Roman Catholics. It should be noted well that calumny, slander and detraction are serious sins that must, and will, be acounted for. So let us all, please, write in a responsible manner.

You can respond to my posts or not as you wish, but I deal with things as I find them and I do not take kindly to being lectured.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate the scientific limitations, or otherwise, of evolutionary processes but to bring to light the Church’s Authoritive Teaching on the matter so that Catholics may reflect upon exactly where we stand on this matter. What are we allowed to accept in regard to scientific speculations and what does the Faith forbid us to believe in this regard?

Forbid us to believe? I utterly abhor and hold in contempt any idea that scientific ideas and speculation should be constrained by religious dogma. That is a mediaeval anti-intellectual idea that was fatally and finally destroyed in the Enlightenment. As a scientist, I reject the notion that I should start or finish with Revelation or Authority in determining the way the world goes. The Book of Nature tells her own story and if churches have to adopt their teaching or their interpretations of Scripture to accomodate what the evidence tells us, then so be it.

hecd2 - Alec: For your information it has not been claimed, except by yourself, that the scientist in the referenced interview advises the Kolbe Center about biological evolution.

I beg your pardon but you are wrong. This is what you wrote:

It’s also a strange remark to make in light of the fact that it is now publicly known that His Holiness is very sceptical about what they call macroevolution, which is, I expect, the idea of a shared ancestor with apes. It appears he is interested in fact, not idle speculation.

I read an interview by John Allen with a scientific advisor to the Kolbe Center.

Well if Tassot doesn’t advise the Kolbe Centre on evolution then what on earth is he doing giving a prominent interview on that very subject that you yourself quoted admiringly in the context of Ratzinger’s opinions on ‘macroevolution’. The fact is that Tassot is a metallurgical engineer, so what on earth has he to offer as a scientific adviser on the subject of biological evolution.

He has qualifications in mathematics, physics and chemistry.

So does the guy who fixes my gas boiler.

If you look at their Advisory Council Board (listed on their website) you will find that they have highly qualified scientists from the biological sciences to advise on such matters.

I looked - I couldn’t find a single theoretical biologist or any biologist of note at all. I did see that the geocentrist Sungenis is listed as a member of the Kolbe *Advisory *Council. If he is the standard of ‘scientist’ that the Kolbe Centre relies on, well, 'nuff said.

(to be continued)

 

[hecd2]

(Continuation)

I hope that you will have the courage to withdraw your rather pathetic attack on Berthault.

Absolutely not! The man is a crank - see below.

He is a highly qualified research scientist who graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique - the elite scientific training ground in France. Although his main interest is in physics I have read that he holds the equivalent of three Ph.D.'s from this multi-disciplinary French system.

Three PhDs, huh? It takes about four years on average to earn a real PhD. So Berthault has been doing PhD research for 12 years? What institution would that be in? Can you refer me to his three PhD theses?

He is acknowledged as being instrumental in the successful battle to prove the scientific authenticity of the Holy Shroud and the invalid C14 dates widely promoted back in the eighties and early nineties.

As far as I am aware the scientific consensus is that the shroud is a mediaeval artefact, so Berthault’s efforts on that front seem to have borne as much fruit as his forays into geology; ie, none.

If he and his research on sedimentation properties are so cranky please explain why his papers on the subject have been published by journals of the French, Russian and Chinese Academies of Science.

I give you the benefit of the doubt as the non-scientist that you are that your misrepresentation of the truth is inadvertant. He has not been published on this topic by any French (or other Western mainstream) peer reviewed journal. He has been published by a Chinese geological journal in Chinese ( nothing to do with the so-called Chinese Academy of Sciences) and twice by a Russian mineralogy journal (again nothing to do with the ‘Russian Academy of Sciences’) that is translated and published in the West in English by Springer (well, that’s one positive for him). The fact is that Berthault is a crank whose delusions of grandeur associated with overturning mainstream geology that has been painstakingly developed over two and a half centuries are being completely and rightly rejected by all academic and professional geologists.

Perhaps you could explain why he was recently invited to present his experimental research to an important geological conference in Europe?

Perhaps you could inform us what that ‘important geological conference in Europe’ was? It’s not a secret, is it?

Some of his papers can be found here should you wish to study them: geology.ref.ac/berthault

*All *of his papers can be found there. I have studied them and while his experiments have some interesting implications for confirming already known hypotheses about the deposition of laminae under rapid deposition, his ideas about overturning mainstream geology with regard to the geological column as a whole is a pure delusion of grandeur.

Perhaps you could explain why his Chinese and Russian papers have not received a single citation in any mainstream geological journal. Not a single citation. They are sinking utterly without trace, and if it wasn’t for the kind of attention that people like you from Kolbe (who know no science) give his ideas, they would already be completely forgotten.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/blog/evolution_blog.html

 

[PhilVaz]

PoG << But Orogeny, polygenism is an heretical notion. >>

Apparently not, according to these theologians who also cite Pius XII. You can have biological polygenism (population of humans) but spiritual or theological monogenism (a pair was ensouled). See below.

From The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (1996 edition), on Humani Generis the authors / editors Fr. Neuner and Dupuis, S.J. state:

“In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being’s origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because ‘it does not appear’ [or ‘it is not at all apparent’] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection.” (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169, emphasis added)

And from the Vatican’s own newspaper, "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" :

“…according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.” (Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)

So apparently polygenism is not clearly heretical, although it may be difficult to reconcile “our first parents” (e.g. CCC Catechism 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392; the 1909 PBC statements; and the Leo XIII encyclical you’ve cited) with a population “group of humans” who fell. These too could be “our first parents” maybe? Why not?

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

.
How do you personally reconcile this against the unanimous belief of the Fathers that the period of Creation took no longer than six, natural days?

How do you reconcile this faith that man had non-human ancestors with the Authoritive Teaching of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII that, he stated, was well known to all and could not be doubted by any?

The same questions apply to other posters who believe in macroevolutionary processes. I am very curious as to how you can reconcile these speculations with the Authoritive Teaching of the Faith.

These questions are easy to answer: if indeed the Fathers believed that the period of Creation took no longer than six natural days then they were wrong, completely and fundamentally wrong, as they would have been wrong about many other ideas about nature that they had. Church fathers lived at a time when many many notions about the natural world were completely mistaken and they shared these mistakes with their contemporaries. So what?

I say the same about Vincenzo Pecci’s statements - if he stated that humans did not have non-human ancestors, well, he was simply and plainly wrong. So what? Scientific truth does not depend on what humans ‘infallibly’ state, whether or not they are popes - it depends on the evidence.

The papal statements about polygeny are going the same way - see my next post.

I sthere somehow a ‘reconciliation’ diffiiculty? I fail to see it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/blog/evolution_blog.html

 

[Orogeny]

But Orogeny, polygenism is an heretical notion. You state that you don’t know. But you should know if you have been following the discussion. You state that Popes are being quoted on matters of science. You are greatly mistaken again. They are being quoted on matters of Faith.

Evolution is science, not faith, so if you are using quotes from popes about evolution, they are making statements about science. Do you deny that?

You may call the pope a heretic if you wish, but I trust him with leading me to the truth. I don’t know you. Unlike Buffalo, with whom I have had many discussions, I don’t have a lot of respect for someone who just joins and begins thowing around the accusation of heresy. Why don’t you just come out and say what you obviously believe - anyone who accepts evolution as valid is a heretic. Beginning with the former Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla. They obviously don’t have the truth that the Kolbe Center does.

Please consider very carefully what His Holiness Pope Leo XIII authoritatively taught, as shown in my previous post, and let me know how you can possibly reconcile a speculation that “it could have been a couple within a population that was then subsequently ensouled” with the Magisterial Teaching on the matter.

I am at peace with my understanding of both the theology and the science. I take great comfort that the Church backs me up on my position and that the Kolbe Center doesn’t.

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

Again, whenever confronted with controversy discredit the intelligence of a person. Don’t stoop so low. Make a reasonable argument.

I have not discredited the intelligence of any human being - I have discredited the *products *of the intelligence of Berthault, Tassot and PoG, but I am entitled to do that - that is what debate is about. They are all talking poppycock.

However, you ask for reasoned argument, and I will give you it on the subject of the so-called ‘heresy’ of polygenism which seems to have become a subject of this thread - I await your reply and that of PoG if indeed he has one (but I’m not holding my breath):

The fact is that the molecular evidence disallows the possibility of a bottleneck of two individuals in the human lineage.

The key finding is that analysis of common alleles in highly polymorphic loci in human and chimpanzee indicate no severe bottleneck since the divergence of human and chimpanzee lineages.

This is supported by:

1. analysis of the major histocompatibility complex - specifically the human leucocyte antigen - DRB1:
   Ayala, ‘The myth of Eve, Molecular biology and human origins’, Science 270, 1930 - 1936
2. Beta-globin:
   Harding et al, ‘Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans’, Am J Hum Genet 60, 772 - 789
3. Apolipoprotein C II:
   Xiong et al, ‘No severe bottleneck during human evolution; evidence from two apolipoprotein C II alleles’, Am J Hum Genet 48, 383 -389

Rogers and Jorde, ‘Genetic evidence on the origin of modern humans’, Hum Biol 67, 1 - 36, show that a modest bottleneck of 10,000 individuals is consistent with the data.

This minimum population size of 10,000 individuals throughout hominid history is also supported by mitochondrial genetic diversity:
Takahata, ‘Allelic genealogy and human evolution’, Mol Biol Evol 10, 2 - 22;

By Y-chromosome data:
Hammer, ’ A recent common ancestry for human Y-chromosomes’, Nature 378, 376 - 378

By nuclear DNA:
Takahata et al, ‘Diversion time and population size in the lineage leading to modern humans’, Theor Popul Biol 48, 198 - 221

All of this evidence refutes the possibility that humans derive genetically from two individuals within the last 6 million years.

At its absolute simplest, if we consider a highly polymorphic locus like DRB-1 in the Human Leucocyte Antigen complex we find 58 human alleles. By carrying out analyses of the pan-speciific alleles we can determine the likely coalescence dates of alleles, by derivation of a phylogenetic tree from pan-specific divergence of individual alleles. That indicates that all 58 alleles persisted through the last 500,000 years of human evolution. The 58 alleles coalesce to 44 lineages by 1.7 Myr BP and to 21 lineages by 6 Myr BP (the approximate date of divergence of human and chimpanzee ancestors). Since anatomically modern humans emerge at 125,000 years BP and culturally modern humans at 50,000 years BP, and the human lineage polymorphism at this locus is 58 alleles during this period, this puts a mathematically logical lower limit on the minimum human populatrion size during culturally modern human existence of 29 individuals which in itself destroys the concept of monogeny.

Formal population genetics demands a much larger population than 29 individuals for the maintenanence of 58 alleles in a situation of neutral drift and balanced evolution (where heterozygosity has more fitness than any homozygosity), and the conclusion from these quantitative evolutionary analyses is that the minimum human population bottlemneck was around 10,000 individuals.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

PoG << It appears that you yourself, Philvaz, believe that man somehow descends biologically from lesser creatures, perhaps beginning with a single cell life form billions of years ago. If I am mistaken, please correct me. >>

Sure, I’ll accept that for now. Doesn’t mean God can’t be directly involved anywhere along the way (at the origin of the universe, at first life, at the first human beings, etc), but I suggest that such “miracles” (i.e. God directly intervening) are not science and not detectable by the scientific method. The following is De Fide and I accept these by faith:

The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

The International Theological Commission stated the same in paragraphs 62-70 of “Communion and Stewardship” that God is the “cause of causes” and that:

“even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation…” (paragraph 68-69)

This was signed and endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004.

PoG << How do you personally reconcile this against the unanimous belief of the Fathers that the period of Creation took no longer than six, natural days? >>

Well, I don’t think the Kolbe Center is all that accurate that every Father interpreted the “days” as literal 24-hour days, or that creation took a week. Origen comes to mind, and Augustine. But it’s not something I have to reconcile since this is a matter for science. It is not defined dogma either way that the creation took 6 days or 6 billion years. I go with the science, not the Kolbe Center interpretations of the Fathers. Here is something from John Paul II, citing Pius XII:

"‘With the same clear and critical gaze with which it examines and judges the facts, it discerns and recognizes there the work of creative Omnipotence, whose strength raised up by the powerful fiat uttered billions of years ago by the creating Mind, has spread through the universe, calling into existence, in a gesture of generous love, matter teeming with energy’ " (JPII, 10/3/1981 to the PAS, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

So maybe you can find out how Pius XII and John Paul II reconcile the statements of the Fathers with a billions year old earth and universe. I’ve given one explanation from Ludwig Ott.

PoG << How do you reconcile this faith that man had non-human ancestors with the Authoritive Teaching of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII that, he stated, was well known to all and could not be doubted by any? >>

That’s a tougher one to reconcile, but as I implied, I don’t have to reconcile since the current Pope believes we did:

“All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are.” (Commentary on Genesis, and see paragraph 63 of the ITC statement)

He also believes a Creating Reason and a Creating Intelligence was responsible, and I call that lower-case “intelligent design.” Written while a Cardinal and head of doctrine in the Church, and if he can’t get it right, nobody can. I would have to look deeper into that Leo XIII encyclical and his other writings since I don’t specifically cover that in my creation-evolution articles.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

If you look at their Advisory Council Board (listed on their website) you will find that they have highly qualified scientists from the biological sciences to advise on such matters.

Oh by the way, the Kolbe website lists Sungenis as having expertise in relativity and cosmology - anyone who knows even undergraduate physics will understand the deep and delicious irony of this. (evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm). I suppose Kolbe’s biologists are as knowledgeable as their cosmologists and physicists. I repeat that if Ratzinger takes any of this Kolbe stuff seriously then he is guilty of gullibility - but I have no reason to suppose he’ll be so naive.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Curiouse]

Now, this might be just rank stupidity, but I’m 14, so please, go easy on me if I am incorrect. I always have seen it that evolution for the birds in the air, fish in the sea, and beasts of the field was acceptable, but to even suggest that humanity went through evolution is heresy. I believe that saying the race of humanity has gone through previous biological incarnations degrades it. I believe that God Almighty, Creator and Father of all that is, created Adam from the literal dust of the earth, and breathed His life into him. I believe that creation may have taken place over billions of years, that all souless creatures evolved from simple single-cell organisms. To me, the only stories that need to be true in Holy Scripture are the Gospels, and The creation and fall of man. I am compelled to say, in faith, that anyone who says that humans came from apes, cannot reconcile himself with The story of the Fall from Grace.

 

[PoG]

Posted by PhilVaz
So apparently polygenism is not clearly heretical, although it may be difficult to reconcile “our first parents” (e.g. CCC Catechism 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392; the 1909 PBC statements; and the Leo XIII encyclical you’ve cited) with a population “group of humans” who fell. These too could be “our first parents” maybe? Why not?

Because it is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

The speculative theological notions you quoted are absolutely worthless and deadly to souls precisely because they oppose the doctrine of the Church.

His Holiness Pope Pius XII reminded the Church Militant in *Humani Generis *that:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

We have already seen that in Arcane Divinae Sapientiae the Holy See has made it extremely clear 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. God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated, and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time.

His Holiness Pope Pius XII adds in *Humani Generis *that:

37. 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.

I would like to remind you all that we are exploring what the Magisterium teaches we must believe and what limits it sets upon scientific and philosophical conjecture. So far you, as a group, have only put forward speculations of certain scientists and theologians and one, possibly two, of you insists upon attempting to derail the thread by throwing forward personalities who have nothing to do with me instigating this thread and launching personal attacks upon them. It is not very clever, nor responsible. Such behaviour can only damage the souls of those who participate in it. Please concentrate on the Magisterial Teaching concerning this subject. Thank you.

 

[PoG]

Posted by hecd2
These questions are easy to answer: if indeed the Fathers believed that the period of Creation took no longer than six natural days then they were wrong, completely and fundamentally wrong… Scientific truth does not depend on what humans ‘infallibly’ state, whether or not they are popes - it depends on the evidence.
Ah, now I understand. Perhaps you should have made it clear that you are not Roman Catholic at the start as I’ve been scratching my head at your comments and labouring under an incorrect assumption. I would appreciate it though that if you want to talk science to please take it to a science orientated thread. I posted this thread with the intention that it would remain strictly on Catholic Magisterial teaching. Thank you, hecd2.

 

[steveandersen]

Now, this might be just rank stupidity, but I’m 14, so please, go easy on me if I am incorrect. I always have seen it that evolution for the birds in the air, fish in the sea, and beasts of the field was acceptable, but to even suggest that humanity went through evolution is heresy. I believe that saying the race of humanity has gone through previous biological incarnations degrades it.

and I believe that it is a prime example of the grander, subtlety, beauty, and wonder of Creation.

I believe that God Almighty, Creator and Father of all that is, created Adam from the literal dust of the earth, and breathed His life into him.

well since your molecules came from the dust of the earth that nourished the plants that fed you then it is quite true that we came from the dust of the earth.

Why do you think that this indicates that there is some sort of conflict between science and faith?

I believe that creation may have taken place over billions of years, that all souless creatures evolved from simple single-cell organisms. To me, the only stories that need to be true in Holy Scripture are the Gospels, and The creation and fall of man.

why would evolution make those any less “true”?

I am compelled to say, in faith, that anyone who says that humans came from apes, cannot reconcile himself with The story of the Fall from Grace.

and I am compelled by science to say that humans didn’t come form apes……We are apes

And so was your mother before you

 

[PepeRoni]

and I believe that it is a prime example of the grander, subtlety, beauty, and wonder of Creation.

well since your molecules came from the dust of the earth that nourished the plants that fed you then it is quite true that we came from the dust of the earth.

Why do you think that this indicates that there is some sort of conflict between science and faith?

why would evolution make those any less “true”?

and I am compelled by science to say that humans didn’t come form apes……We are apes

And so was your mother before you

There might not be always a conflict between science and faith, but science these days takes considerably more faith than religion.

Science is demonstrable, observable, testable and repeatable.

Saying we all came from aomeba’s (forget about just apes) is faith.

 

[PoG]

Posted by Orogeny

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoG
But Orogeny, polygenism is an heretical notion. You state that you don’t know. But you should know if you have been following the discussion. You state that Popes are being quoted on matters of science. You are greatly mistaken again. They are being quoted on matters of Faith.

Evolution is science, not faith, so if you are using quotes from popes about evolution, they are making statements about science. Do you deny that?

Macroevolution is faith, it is speculative science. There are areas where the investigations of natural scientists and philosophers encroach upon the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith. This is one such area. I would remind you of the Canons on Faith and Reason of Vatican Council I.

*On Faith and Reason: I. If anyone says that in Divine Revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the Faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason: II. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to Divine Revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

On Faith and Reason: III. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.*

Posted by Orogeny
You may call the pope a heretic if you wish, but I trust him with leading me to the truth. I don’t know you. Unlike Buffalo, with whom I have had many discussions, I don’t have a lot of respect for someone who just joins and begins thowing around the accusation of heresy. Why don’t you just come out and say what you obviously believe - anyone who accepts evolution as valid is a heretic. Beginning with the former Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Karol Wojtyla.

You accuse me falsely. I have not written that anyone is a heretic. Such a thing is for God to know and for the Church to determine, not me. I warn you that such false accusations can only damage your soul. I also have no interest in responding to you anymore. Ciao.