Magisterium concerning Creation/evolution controversy

[PhilVaz]

PoG citing Pius XII << Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled >>

This is the key phrase. It means Pius XII does not know how such an opinion (polygenism) could be reconciled. He does not say polygenism is heretical. He does not say polygenism is absolutely out of the question. He says he does not know how polygenism could be reconciled with the faith about original sin and Adam/Eve, etc. There is also the question what is meant by “polygenism” since there can be biological polygenism (many humans) but spiritual or theological monogenism (one couple is ensouled), e.g. the Vatican newspaper article.

PoG << 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 >>

I’ve linked my own article, which states these are De Fide:

– God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
– The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
– The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
– God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
– God has created a good world. (De Fide)
– 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 first man was created by God. (De Fide)
– Man consists of two essential parts – a material body and a spiritual soul. (De Fide)
– Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De Fide)
– Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De Fide)
– The donum immortalitatis, i.e. the divine gift of bodily immortality of our first parents. (De Fide)
– Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De Fide)
– Through the original sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De Fide)
– Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De Fide)

Can we agree these are De Fide? This list is from Ludwig Ott who I’ve already quoted on the Fathers, Genesis, and science. BTW, science will continue on despite the Magisterium, and we need to keep up which is why the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was founded. Rejecting modern science like the Kolbe Center does is not an option for Catholics who care about faith and reason.

Yes, there are some theological difficulties with evolution, we’ve dealt with all of them in here in some detail (death before sin, Adam/Eve and original sin, how to interpret Genesis, human evolution and hominids, randomness and God’s providence, etc), but you also need to deal with the fact the modern Popes accept evolution and apparently see no conflict with modern science.

Are you saying you know more than the Popes? Are you saying the Popes are completely ignorant of previous teaching (Leo XIII, Pius X, 1909 PBC statements, Vatican Council I, Lateran IV, etc) ? I’ve dealt with some of this but not all of this here.

Phil P

 

[PoG]

**FAITH & REASON **- next section
Kolbe Center Articles Section www.kolbecenter.org

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 the Confession of Faith issued by Lateran Council IV in 1215. The text is often poorly translated in available references but Denzinger gives the Latin original that includes the adverb “simul” meaning “at once”, “altogether”, “at the same time”.

*Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.* [5]

On the face of it Lateran IV’s dogmatic Confession of Faith could appear to favor the minority position of complete, instantaneous Creation. But, in fact, the majority opinion fits very well with the definition. Those Fathers, such as St. Basil, who proclaimed six, twenty four hour days, due to the obvious sense of Holy Scripture, also believed in a single primordial Creation of elementary matter, whilst maintaining a realistic acknowledgement of the work of six days. They spoke of simultaneous Creation as being the Creation of formless matter to be shaped during the Creation period of six, natural days. [6]

The majority opinion is give further great weight by Holy Scripture where, in Exodus, God commands His people to keep the Sabbath holy because in six days He created the heavens, the earth and all they contain, and rested on the seventh day. The Catechism of the Council of Trent - also known as the the Roman Catechism - teaches that the seventh day of the week was made a day of rest because of this Divine Command.

We now come to the meaning of the word Sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, having finished the Creation of the world, rested on that day from all the work which He had done. Thus it is called by the Lord in Exodus. [7]

Thus Holy Scripture, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, along with the Patristics, Mediaevals and the entire Church inform us that the period of Creation ceased at the end of the sixth day, and so began the period of God’s Providence. The counter-argument at this point usually formulates itself to imply that a new soul is created for each person at the moment of conception and so the creative process continues to this day. It is a poor argument that neglects to recognize that each soul shares the same nature as that given to Adam - complete with its later stain of guilt of Original Sin - and is not therefore the creation of a new nature but the continuation of an existing nature. Another poor counter-argument mistakenly confuses biological generation and genetic variation with the creation of new kinds. Vatican Council I in its Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 1, 4, spoke of providence thus:

*Everything that God has brought into being He protects and governs by His providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures. *[8]

 

[PhilVaz]

Curi << 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 think most Catholics would hold to that (we are from the earth, and we have God-created souls), but the question is how long did this take, and by what processes? Scripture doesn’t answer that. It is not a science textbook.

Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has said Genesis tells us “who are are” while evolution tells us “how we got here” in his commentary on Genesis 2:7 –

“What does this account say? We are told that God formed the man of dust from the ground…you did not make yourself, and you do not rule the universe; you are limited. You are a being destined for death, as are all things living; you are only earth… The human being has…been fashioned from God’s good earth…Emperor and beggar, master and slave are all ultimately one and the same person, taken from the same earth and destined to return to the same earth. Throughout all the highs and lows of history the human being stays the same – earth, formed from earth, and destined to return to it. Thus the unity of the whole human race becomes immediately apparent: We are all from only one earth…But in order for the human being to exist there must be a second element as well. The basic material is earth; from this the human being comes into existence after God has breathed his breath into the nostrils of the body that was formed from it. The divine reality enters in here…Each human being is known by God and loved by him. Each is willed by God, and each is God’s image. Precisely in this consists the deeper and greater unity of humankind – that each of us, each individual human being, realizes the one project of God and has his or her origin in the same creative idea of God.”

AND

“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. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.”

Sorry, there is no “Kolbe Center” or “Discovery Institute” theology going on here.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Confession of Faith issued by Lateran Council IV in 1215. The text is often poorly translated in available references but Denzinger gives the Latin original that includes the adverb “simul” meaning “at once”, “altogether”, “at the same time” >>

Lateran IV (and others) I’ve dealt with already:

Neither the words “six days” nor the “creation week” appear in these Council documents. On the contrary, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite explicit:

1. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work,” concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” [Vatican II LG 36] (see also paragraphs 339, 342, 345 which refer to the “six days”)
2. Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. [footnote refers to St. Augustine, De Genesi adv Man 1, 2, 4: PL 34, 175]

The point is that everything that exists owes its existence to God, however He chose to do it, whether by direct-special creation in six days a short time ago, or by secondary natural causes set up, overseen, directed, and “willed” by God billions of years ago as theistic evolutionists would accept.

And since the Catechism endorses the findings of modern science (paragraphs 159, 283-284) and even quotes the Fourth Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council on creation (see paragraphs 293 and 327) we can be quite sure that a “symbolical” (as opposed to a literal) understanding of the “six days” of “creation week” in Genesis 1 is an acceptable and orthodox Catholic understanding of the text.

Neither the Fourth Lateran Council, nor the First Vatican Council, nor the Council of Florence says when God did the creating, how long that creating took, nor by what processes God did the creating. Nothing is mentioned about taking the “six days” of “creation week” literally. The question of the age of the earth is of course a matter for science to discover and does not fall under the “faith” or “morals” that is the domain of the Catholic magisterium. What we do find above are the following points:

– God is the Creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and the corporal (material)
– By God’s omnipotent power He created all the creatures from nothing, the angelic, mundane, and human, both spirit and body
– The world and all spiritual and material things concerning their whole substance were produced by God from nothing
– God created all things because He loves Himself and us
– The world was created to the glory of God

The main point here is that God is ultimately the Creator of all things. Even six-day creationists do not believe God created by direct-special creation ALL the species that exist on earth today. There are estimated to be around 1.5 to 2 million currently known species, another 10 million that haven’t been discovered yet. And six-day creationists accept microevolution – which they define as variation within the Genesis “kinds” – as set up, overseen, directed, and “willed” by God.

In fact, they believe that in less than 6000 years since the worldwide Flood of Noah, the “two” of each “kind” of animal brought aboard Noah’s Ark, by normal reproduction and microevolution processes, produced the geographical distribution of the hundreds of thousands or millions of species that exist today, i.e. without God’s help of direct-special creation, since all “creation” supposedly ended on “day six” around 10,000-15,000 years ago. That affirms a much more rapid and efficient evolution than even staunch “Darwinists” like Richard Dawkins or Michael Ruse would accept! In short, young-earth creationists believe all this evolution occurred in just a couple thousand years since the Flood.

Theistic evolutionists also believe God set up the natural laws and processes that allowed this earth to be populated by all the species of plants, animals, and man we have today. They accept macroevolution set up, overseen, directed and “willed” by God and that fits better the fossil record, the biogeographical evidence, the immensity and diversity of existing species, along with the “deep time” of our planet (c. 4.5 billion years old) and universe (c. 15 billion years old).

You copy/paste, I can copy/paste.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

PoG << Macroevolution is faith, it is speculative science. >>

BTW, when you post such statements, HECD (Alec) is allowed to overwhelm you with the science. Yes he is an atheist, but science is science. The question “Is evolution true?” (i.e. meaning strong evidence for common descent, just to be clear) is a scientific question. Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers agrees:

“Until such time as the magisterium would either reverse its twentieth-century finding that human evolution is not precluded by the deposit of faith or would make a new finding that it is required by the deposit, human evolution as a matter that is free with respect to the sources. It is a matter that must stand or fall on its own scientific merits; it is not a matter of Catholic teaching.” (Jimmy Akin, This Rock, Jan 2004)

I’ll deal with the magisterial documents where I can, Hecd (Alec) and Orogeny (Tim) and Steve Anderson can handle the science.

Evidence (long version)
Evidence (summary version)

Phil P

 

[simonadams]

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.

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?

I would also advise you to actually study the article referenced at the beginning of the thread. So far you have just been tilting at windmills of your own making. The points that you raise, PhilVaz, are all covered in the article if you would but care to read it. Otherwise I fear that you will continue to make yourself look foolish in the eyes of those who do read it.

PoGo

As Catholics we stand for truth. Our lord, the word through whom the universe was created, the one begotten not made, is “the way, the truth and the light”. And yet you and your ilk choose to reject the search for truth and place in its stead the validation of your primitive interpretations of His word. The Church has made many statements which concord with the search for truth and make your absurd Kolbe Center look like you have been infected by these fundamentalists who are so afraid of science that they invent their own version of it that is neither science nor Christian theology. Satan has no more powerful tool than fear.

Your Kolbe Center claims that dinosaurs were roaming around with humans. Do you know how ridiculous a claim that is ? The bible claims no such thing. Science has proven that to be nonsense. And yet you crackpots chose to reject the papal encyclicals, the bible, science and common sense, all because of some fear you have regarding science (mostly that you don’t understand it, but partly that some equally wacky scientists claim evolution theory refutes the existence of God). Your epistemology is so warped that I can only hope you have the humility to admit that maybe, just maybe, God is more magnificent than you imagined. And then to have some faith in reason to add to your reason for faith. God is spirit! He is not some old grey haired man chipping away in a workshop making his next species. Thats an insult to God.

Unless you can claim to understand how God created man as He describes in Genesis, please stop pretending you do. And please stop your Kolbe Center from having the same misguided and arrogant attitude whilst you’re at it. I’m trying on other forums and blogs to persuade people to give Jesus a chance, to let them know that he is the truth, and in return I get people mocking me because of things the Kolbe Center comes out with in the name of Catholicism. I’m quite prepared to be mocked and even beaten and killed in the name of Jesus. But I’m not prepared to have people like you hoist your petard in a way that makes the whole Catholic Church look like some refuge for country bumpkins that only believe in God because someone told them to. Its a LIE to say that humans lived amongst dinosaurs. Satan welcomes and encourages lies that make the bride of Christ look foolish.

(…continued)

 

[simonadams]

(continued…)

I’ll leave you with a couple of quotes from that seminal father of the Church, St Augustine;

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

(ibid, 2:9)

Hopefully you can understand theology better than science ? We need to all join together to refute the idea that science can possibly provide an epistemological fullness on all matters. In the meantime people like you are disrupting this work and thus opposing the will of Jesus, as Augustine himself would be the first to admit (see his sermon to the people of Cherchell)

If you don’t consider Augustine an authority, then I will quote you our current Pope, the previous one, or even Jesus himself. Lets give Caesar his dues, and not let it get in the way of reconciling man to god.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s a very strange post to make considering that the article consists of a long list of Magisterial statements and actions of the Holy Office (which was an arm of the Magisterium). Perhaps you should read it before commenting.

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. It turns out that several of their scientists are friends of His Holiness and he appears to be sympathetic to their position. I expect he’s aware of the Magisterial pronouncements contained in the article that I referenced. Here’s the interview: [ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/tassot_interview.pdf)

Pax Romanum.

Magisterial statements are sometimes rendered obsolete by events. Something that was condemned in 1907 or 1520 or whenever may in the course of time become something the Church needs to teach as true.​

Bishops (the Pope included) can only condemn (say) biological evolution in the form it takes in their own time; it is quite possible that, 50 or 100 years later, the form they knew it in, which contained the features they condemned, will have been replaced by a form of biological evolution which gives no reason for condemnation. So a condemnation which was appropriate or necessary in 1907 (or whenever) may be out of date by 1990, because ideas don’t stand still - the year will not always be 1907, & people’s ideas change as they learn more.

Times change, ideas change, understanding of palaeontology changes, the Church too changes - it has to, because it has to meet the challenges of the times in which it lives: it cannot live in the past for ever, because it lives in a changing world. People of 2106 won’t want or need answers that suited usnow, in 2006 - they will want answers, & have problems in & for their circumstances: not ours. That’s why it can’t be taken for granted that what was adequate a century ago, is adequate now. It may be - but then again, it may not. And in matters such as evolution & palaeontology, a great deal has happened since (say) 1907. So the issue does not in fact stand where it did then.

The letter rejecting biological evolution written by Pius IX in 1878 (to an author who had written against Darwinism) is possibly a better choice of document than Pascendi, in some ways - but, though more relevant as regards its subject matter, it’s even less applicable today than Pascendi ##

 

[hecd2]

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.

Why should I make it clear to you? - I’ve been posting on this list for years - and you? Why are you obsessed with labels? It seems that you are anxious to label as heretical the views of any number of my good catholic friends on this list.

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.

I am afraid that I cannot accomodate you. Whenever you make statements that are scientifically mistaken, or when you promote cranks as scientific authorities, I reserve the right to point that out or indeed to make any comment I think fit.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

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

I do not argue the point of whether evolution occurs or not. I argue whether man himself evolved or was supernaturally created. These are two different issues.

 

[buffalo]

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

Where and who are the humans that were not ensouled? What is their fate? Where are they now? How do I know I am not one of them?

 

[buffalo]

The trend of this thread is whether or not man has evolved. For a minute let’s stop fighting about evolution as applied to organisms other than man.

The real question is whether man has evolved from a lower form and what does the magisterium teach on this subject.

First off, no one was there to witness our first parents. The biological DNA tracks are compelling but still speculative.

A few questions to see if we can get consensus:

1. Do all here agree that we had only one set of parents?
2. Do we agree they possessed preternatural gifts?

 

[hecd2]

**FAITH & REASON **- next section
Kolbe Center Articles Section www.kolbecenter.org

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 the Confession of Faith issued by Lateran Council IV in 1215… *

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body.* [5]

On the face of it Lateran IV’s dogmatic Confession of Faith could appear to favor the minority position of complete, instantaneous Creation. But, in fact, the majority opinion fits very well with the definition. Those Fathers, such as St. Basil, who proclaimed six, twenty four hour days, due to the obvious sense of Holy Scripture, also believed in a single primordial Creation of elementary matter, whilst maintaining a realistic acknowledgement of the work of six days. They spoke of simultaneous Creation as being the Creation of formless matter to be shaped during the Creation period of six, natural days. [6]

…

Thus Holy Scripture, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, along with the Patristics, Mediaevals and the entire Church inform us that the period of Creation ceased at the end of the sixth day, and so began the period of God’s Providence.

Well, of course, a literal six day creation is completely ruled out by the evidence unless one wishes to postulate a deliberately deceptive God. However, from a theological point of view, consider whether these church fathers dogmatically held to a literal reading of Genesis (in the sense young earth creationists use the term ‘literal’) and an insistence of natural 24 hours days in the six days of creation:

‘For as Adam was told in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived moreover that the expression “The day of the Lord is as a thousand years” is connected with this subject’ - Justin Martyr - Dialogue 82

‘That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: “This is the book of the generation; also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth”. For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production."’ - Clement of Alexandria - Miscellanies v1.16

‘The text said that “there was evening and there was morning”, it did not say “the first day”, but said “one day”. It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. but time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and he third and fourth and all the rest being to designate time’ - Origen - Homily 1

'What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider a reasonable statement that the first and second and third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? And who could be found so silly as to believe that God after the manner of a farmer, “planted trees in a paradise eastward in Eden”… And… when God is said to walk in then paradise in the evening…I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history…’ Origen – First Principles Bk 4, Ch 3.

‘God created all things simultaneously at the beginning of the ages, creating some in their substance and others in pre-existing causes’ – Augustine - The Literal Meaniong of Genesis, vii; 42 (and if that’s not compatible with theistic evolution, I don’t know what is.)

‘Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies. This special meaning of “day” must not be maintained just for the first three days, with the understanding that after the third day we take the word “day” in its ordinary sense. But we must keep the same meaning even to the sixth and seventh days.’ Augustine Ibid iv, 26

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

‘The day in the account of creation, or those days that are numbers according to its recurrence, are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earth-bound men. And if we are able to make any effort towards understanding of those days, we ought not to rush forward with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be offered.’ Augustine ibid iv, 44

And not a Church Father, but offering sound advice:
‘Two rules are to observed…The first is to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it is proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing’ Aquinas – Question lxviii

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

[snip]

I’ll deal with the magisterial documents where I can, Hecd (Alec) and Orogeny (Tim) and Steve Anderson can handle the science.

[snip]
Phil P

Hmmm. Phil, in the future please consider leaving the door open for women to contribute too. Lord knows I’ve given it my best! And I can’t help it that my scientific contributions to Catholic.com disappeared in the crash that occurred between April and September.

I did spend yesterday evening helping three third graders with algebra so am late on delivery regarding my message #36 . These are bright, little girls from my neighborhood whom I’ve been sharing my love for science. Their minds wish to explore every avenue at this time and I want them to know that they would be a welcomed presence in a field of science. (They often read by postings here and elsewhere on the Internet Last night they giggled at your comment knowing full well at their age that learning, sharing, and playing isn’t an all Boys’ Club )

 

[hecd2]

.

A few questions to see if we can get consensus:

1. Do all here agree that we had only one set of parents?

No, and the molecular evidence disallows such a thing - see my detailed earlier post on this subject.

1. Do we agree they possessed preternatural gifts?

If, by that you mean supernatural, no (in reference to first Homo with fully developed human faculties)
If you mean did they have faculties that were of a different order of complexity and competence than other animals, the answer is yes.

 

[Orogeny]

Macroevolution is faith, it is speculative science.

Considering that you accept the “science” cited by the Kolbe Center, I understand that you probably actually believe that. You, as well as your Kolbe Center sources, are wrong.

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 don’t accuse you of anything. Your intentions have been made clear in multiple posts. Your warnings mean nothing to me.

I also have no interest in responding to you anymore. Ciao.

Too bad. It does not reflect very well on you that you start a thread on a public forum and then refuse to defend your position. But so be it.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

No, and the molecular evidence disallows such a thing - see my detailed earlier post on this subject.
If, by that you mean supernatural, no (in reference to first Homo with fully developed human faculties)
If you mean did they have faculties that were of a different order of complexity and competence than other animals, the answer is yes.

According to hecd and science we have to discard the following dogmas.

The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
The donum immortalitatis, i.e., bodily immortality. (De fide.)
The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)

Do we have consensus?

 

[buffalo]

Here are a few more we ill have to discard.

1. 
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.
   
   Comment: Our first parents according to hecd did not live in paradise.

 

[danielsgram]

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” G.K. Chesterton