Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Neil_Anthony]

Don’t know, lightening or storms, volcanoes, high winds, FLOODS , insects, extreme temperatures, beaver, and the after affects of any one or all of these.

Oh yeah, especially the beavers! Forgot about those. Thats even worse than a flood for a tree.

 

[mpartyka]

There is no reason not to read the text literally - except for us. That’s not the problem for the composer: it’s ours. Only if forced to be a sort of writing it is not intended to be do the absurdities of Fundamentalism arise - it is Fundamentalists, nobody else (such as the composer) who insist it’s historical writing. Where does the text claim to be factual or inspired or Scripture ? Nowhere. The only people to read the text literally are the scholars - Fundamentalists put it to endless tortures, to make it mean almost anything but what it could mean: & they vilify the scholars unceasingly for not distorting it.

I have a hard time blaming “fundamentalists” for reading the text literally without blaming everyone else in the Bible and in the Fathers who also appear to have taken them just as literally. The Apostle Peter treats the Noachic Flood as a real event. The Apostle Jude treats the mating of angels with human women as a real event. The Apostle Paul treats the origination of the whole human race from a single human male as fact. How do we blame “fundamentalists” for “distorting” the text without blaming the Apostles and the Fathers for doing the same thing? And if our response is, “They didn’t know what we know today,” then what’s to prevent us from tossing out just about everything they ever said about any subject because “they didn’t know what we know today”?

–Mike

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Many Popes through history have written their thoughts and years later were found to be false.

Really?

Care to cite one?

:ehh:

 

[mpartyka]

Really?

Care to cite one?

:ehh:

Please check out the thread “Pope Leo on the Immaculate Conception” for one example.

–Mike

 

[Mea_Culpa]

And it shows that attempts to save the credit of the narrative by looking at it as though the narrative were told with twentieth-century knowledge of the world, merely make it a lie for the ancients. If they did not include plants among living things - neither should we. If we do (as we should) it makes no sense to defend an ancient text with knowledge not known when it was compiled.​

Fundamentalism has a habit of doing this.

There is no reason not to read the text literally - except for us. That’s not the problem for the composer: it’s ours. Only if forced to be a sort of writing it is not intended to be do the absurdities of Fundamentalism arise - it is Fundamentalists, nobody else (such as the composer) who insist it’s historical writing.

from Dei Verbum:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

The have God as their author! Much of your confusion is because you see Holy Scripture as just another book. It isn’t.

Where does the text claim to be factual or inspired or Scripture ? Nowhere.

How about 2Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (the Greek literally says all scripture is “God-breathed”)

The only people to read the text literally are the scholars - Fundamentalists put it to endless tortures, to make it mean almost anything but what it could mean: & they vilify the scholars unceasingly for not distorting it.

Yes, there is distortion going on - starting with not approaching the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures with a sense of reverence. All these prideful attempts to rely on man and not God will only lead to ruination (read Isaiah for some edification on this.)

 

[StAnastasia]

Oh yeah, especially the beavers! Forgot about those. Thats even worse than a flood for a tree.

No beavers at that elevation in the White Mountains.

 

[wildleafblower]

Teilhard de Chardin’s views have long been rejected as WildLeafBlower correctly reminds us. His idolatrous adoration of evolutionary principle was formally denounced by the Holy See.

I never said TdC’s science was rejected just parts of his theology. Evolution is a fact Catholic Johnny! I even agree with that!

 

[StAnastasia]

I never said TdC’s science was rejected just parts of his theology. Evolution is a fact Catholic Johnny! I even agree with that!

Teilhard was not the first Catholic theologian to endorse evolution; one might look to Holy Cross Father John Zahm as an early figure in this regard (1898). What makes Teilhard especially important for theology is that he placed evolution in cosmological context, and then interpreted the whole of evolving cosmology through a christological lens, the christology of the cosmic Christ. As important to the twentieth century as Aquinas was to the thirteenth, Teilhard became one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the century, and his fundamental insights have been widely incorporated into theological thought.

StAnastasia

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Yes, there is distortion going on - starting with not approaching the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures with a sense of reverence. All these prideful attempts to rely on man and not God will only lead to ruination (read Isaiah for some edification on this.)

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Also did Pius XII speak infallibly on this? He didn’t, so there is a possibility he could of been wrong, not to say he was but there is the possibility. Many Popes through history have written their thoughts and years later were found to be false.

So let me get this straight: a Papal Encyclical confirming the ancient and eternal faith and closing the door on all further disputation of the established points “could be wrong”, while an out of context quote lifted from a private speculation by JPII to the PAS in 1986 as to evoltutionary theorie(s) is binding upon all Christians?

And you wonder why the Church died in Europe?

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Teilhard was not the first Catholic theologian to endorse evolution; one might look to Holy Cross Father John Zahm as an early figure in this regard (1898). What makes Teilhard especially important for theology is that he placed evolution in cosmological context, and then interpreted the whole of evolving cosmology through a christological lens, the christology of the cosmic Christ. As important to the twentieth century as Aquinas was to the thirteenth, Teilhard became one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the century, and his fundamental insights have been widely incorporated into theological thought.

StAnastasia

Teilhard’s neo-pantheism was and is rejected by the Magisterial Authority of the Church.

So-called theolgians that you cite are destroying the faith. Your comparison of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the censured Teilhard is insulting to obedient Catholics, a gratuitous over reach, and very close to blasphemy. Like your patron ‘saint’, you lunge at evolution while losing all meaning of original sin.

 

[StAnastasia]

So-called theolgians that you cite are destroying the faith. Your comparison of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the censured Teilhard is insulting to obedient Catholics, a gratuitous over reach, and very close to blasphemy. Like your patron ‘saint’, you lunge at evolution while losing all meaning of original sin.

Catholic Johnny, unless you have made Thomas Aquinas your God, I recommend you not throw around the term “blasphemy” quite so freely! Aquinas was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of the recently rediscovered Aristotelian corpus. Teilhard de Chardin was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of what we now know about the evolutionary history of the universe, which has completely superseded Aristotelian physics and biology.

A significant measure of the the influence of Teilhard is the extent to which theologians have incorporated and already moved beyond his thinking. I know of no theologians who have rejected evolution and moved backward to articulate an Aristotelian view of the universe. The hundreds of theologians with whom I’ve worked and interacted – including Teilhard’s fellow Jesuits – have taken evolution on board. You might participate in one of the meetings of the North American Teilhard Society some day, just to see how creatively people are workling with evolutionary themes in theology.

StAnastasia,

 

[mpartyka]

Reading an interesting link right now dealing with the conflict of Catholic thought with evolutionary thought over the years:

innerexplorations.org/chtheomortext/human.htm

–Mike

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Catholic Johnny, unless you have made Thomas Aquinas your God, I recommend you not throw around the term “blasphemy” quite so freely! Aquinas was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of the recently rediscovered Aristotelian corpus. Teilhard de Chardin was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of what we now know about the evolutionary history of the universe, which has completely superseded Aristotelian physics and biology.

A significant measure of the the influence of Teilhard is the extent to which theologians have incorporated and already moved beyond his thinking. I know of no theologians who have rejected evolution and moved backward to articulate an Aristotelian view of the universe. The hundreds of theologians with whom I’ve worked and interacted – including Teilhard’s fellow Jesuits – have taken evolution on board. You might participate in one of the meetings of the North American Teilhard Society some day, just to see how creatively people are workling with evolutionary themes in theology.

StAnastasia,

Dear StAnastasia:
You proceed glibly in your persistent assertions that 'we now know evolution" explains the history of the universe. We know no such thing. You have a large consensus of people who have placed their faith in the scientific theories, models, hypotheses, speculations and cosmologies proposed by unbelieving scientists.

You wave off the Church’s censure of Teilhard as if the Church was wrong to do so. And then you attempt to soften the severity of proceeding with this unChristian syncretism of Catholic Faith and pagan, monistic, pantheistic belief by insisting that by calling it what it is, blasphemy, I am too strident or out of touch with the Teaching Office of the Catholic Church. And this is the inevitable fruit of all such syncretism with evolution: a redefinition of sin which renders the Cross of Christ significantly diminished in its power to rescue doomed sinners.

I would remind our readers that it was the religious establishment in Jerusalem that condemned our Blessed Savior and handed Him over to the Romans to be crucified. Your reference to a consensus of “theologians” that are “taking evolution onboard” indicates the same wholesale rejection of the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth that occurred during the Passion week.

A similar apostasy occurred in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC when the Israelites tried to syncretize the True Faith with Ba’alism (nature worship), which is eerily similar to the syncretism you are proposing. That kingdom was completely destroyed (as the Prophets foretold) in 722 BC by the Assyrians.

A similar fate awaited Judah who not only did the same as Israel but increased their tresspass by inviting the Canaanite gods into the Temple of YHWH. The Babylonians destroyed Judah in 586 BC.

All attempts to syncretize the Faith with nature worship lead to doom and destruction. I may remind our readers that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung were all strident and enthusiastic evolutionists. When they applied their natural sciences to political theory they found necessity and justification for slaughtering millions of people, including uncountable numbers of Christians and Jews.

The Churches in Europe also embraced this pagan theory and attempted to shoe horn the God of the Bible into the model. The churches in Europe are empty and the birthrates have fallen well below replacement rate there. Perhaps that is ironically just, seeing they chose Darwin over Christ and now are being de-selected by nature.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a hard time blaming “fundamentalists” for reading the text literally without blaming everyone else in the Bible and in the Fathers who also appear to have taken them just as literally. The Apostle Peter treats the Noachic Flood as a real event. The Apostle Jude treats the mating of angels with human women as a real event. The Apostle Paul treats the origination of the whole human race from a single human male as fact. How do we blame “fundamentalists” for “distorting” the text without blaming the Apostles and the Fathers for doing the same thing? And if our response is, “They didn’t know what we know today,” then what’s to prevent us from tossing out just about everything they ever said about any subject because “they didn’t know what we know today”?

It’s a fact, not a horrid “liberal” blasphemy, that the medical knowledge possessed by the first Christians was not nearly as good as ours is. A lot of people on the fora would be dead, if they restricted themselves to the medical knowledge available at that time. Why*** should ***people have to die for such a reason ? That’s downright barbaric.​

The answer to the question is that there are principles for acting & thinking.

–Mike

There is a crucial difference - the Apostles, & Fathers & most later generations of readers did not organise their thinking about the Bible & its message as an anti-critical defence: they were pre-critical, but not anti-critical.​

Fundamentalists are anti-critical - not pre-critical. To them, it is essential to uphold the inerrancy of the Bible - & to do so, they distort the text constantly. It’s of the first importance for us to see the issue with the greatest possible clarity - Fundamentalism is a very complex entity, & there is far more to it “than taking the Bible literally” - very often, that’s exactly what Fundamentalists refuse to do. What they are after is a “plain sense” that at the very least does not endanger belief in the total inerrancy of the Bible in all respects. As Fundamentalism as such is a modern phenomenon (though one with ancient roots) it is in the position of insisting on the inerrant truth of pre-scientific data in the Bible, which it tries to vindicate by using scientific data (that is what Robert Sungenis tries to do as well)

There is far more to this issue than an over-simple opposition between “ancient” and “modern”.

This doesn’t meet your specific questions, but I hope it clarifies matters.

 

[StAnastasia]

Dear StAnastasia:
You proceed glibly in your persistent assertions that 'we now know evolution" explains the history of the universe. We know no such thing. You have a large consensus of people who have placed their faith in the scientific theories, models, hypotheses, speculations and cosmologies proposed by unbelieving scientists.

You wave off the Church’s censure of Teilhard as if the Church was wrong to do so. And then you attempt to soften the severity of proceeding with this unChristian syncretism of Catholic Faith and pagan, monistic, pantheistic belief by insisting that by calling it what it is, blasphemy, I am too strident or out of touch with the Teaching Office of the Catholic Church. And this is the inevitable fruit of all such syncretism with evolution: a redefinition of sin which renders the Cross of Christ significantly diminished in its power to rescue doomed sinners.

I would remind our readers that it was the religious establishment in Jerusalem that condemned our Blessed Savior and handed Him over to the Romans to be crucified. Your reference to a consensus of “theologians” that are “taking evolution onboard” indicates the same wholesale rejection of the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth that occurred during the Passion week.

A similar apostasy occurred in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC when the Israelites tried to syncretize the True Faith with Ba’alism (nature worship), which is eerily similar to the syncretism you are proposing. That kingdom was completely destroyed (as the Prophets foretold) in 722 BC by the Assyrians.

A similar fate awaited Judah who not only did the same as Israel but increased their tresspass by inviting the Canaanite gods into the Temple of YHWH. The Babylonians destroyed Judah in 586 BC.

All attempts to syncretize the Faith with nature worship lead to doom and destruction. I may remind our readers that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung were all strident and enthusiastic evolutionists. When they applied their natural sciences to political theory they found necessity and justification for slaughtering millions of people, including uncountable numbers of Christians and Jews.

The Churches in Europe also embraced this pagan theory and attempted to shoe horn the God of the Bible into the model. The churches in Europe are empty and the birthrates have fallen well below replacement rate there. Perhaps that is ironically just, seeing they chose Darwin over Christ and now are being de-selected by nature.

Catholic Johnny, I see little point in carrying this discussion further. You want to bring the Church back to the thirteenth century – before evolution, before biblical criticism, before the deep history of time, before Newton and Galileo, before the Renaissance and Reformation.

Well, I can tell you that’s simply not going to happen. Apart from a few reactionaries, Catholic theology is firmly set toward the future, not the past. Teilhard and Rahner, Schillebeeckz and Tillich, Haught and Peacocke, Stoeger and Polkinghorne, Peters and Delio – these are the voices of the future. Aristotle was great in his day, but time has moved on.

You are fortunate to have this forum to propound your own ideas, because they are of the past will never again flourish in universities, seminaries, or parishes. If you think your ideas are worth pushing, by all means propose sessions on them at theological gatherings. Your proposal may not be accepted, but you will have given it an honest shot, and that is good!

StAnastasia

 

[wildleafblower]

Well, I can tell you that’s simply not going to happen. Apart from a few reactionaries, Catholic theology is firmly set toward the future, not the past. Teilhard and Rahner, Schillebeeckz and Tillich, Haught and Peacocke, Stoeger and Polkinghorne, Peters and Delio – these are the voices of the future. Aristotle was great in his day, but time has moved on.

StAnastasia

Anastasia, do you and those you name above agree with the entire contents of the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Here is just a snippet it :

Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Section One: “I Believe” — “We Believe”
Chapter Two: God Comes to Meet Man

The Transmission of Divine Revelation

[snip]
15. To whom is the deposit of faith entrusted?

84, 91
94, 99

The Apostles entrusted the deposit of faith to the whole of the Church. Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith the people of God as a whole, assisted by the Holy Spirit and guided by the Magisterium of the Church, never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine revelation.

1. To whom is given the task of authentically interpreting the deposit of faith?

85-90
100

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, that is, to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and to the bishops in communion with him. To this Magisterium, which in the service of the Word of God enjoys the certain charism of truth, belongs also the task of defining dogmas which are formulations of the truths contained in divine Revelation. This authority of the Magisterium also extends to those truths necessarily connected with Revelation.

1. What is the relationship between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium?

95

Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are so closely united with each other that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Sacred Scripture

1. Why does Sacred Scripture teach the truth?

105-108
135-136

Because God himself is the author of Sacred Scripture. For this reason it is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors who wrote what he wanted to teach us. The Christian faith, however, is not a “religion of the Book”, but of the Word of God – “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living” (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux).

1. How is Sacred Scripture to be read?

109-119
137

Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria: 1) it must be read with attention to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture; 2) it must be read within the living Tradition of the Church; 3) it must be read with attention to the analogy of faith, that is, the inner harmony which exists among the truths of the faith themselves.

[snip]
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU+PROPRIO
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compe...hive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU+PROPRIO

MOTU PROPRIO

for the approval and publication of the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the People of God.

[snip]

It is with great joy that I now approve and promulgate the Compendium of that Catechism.

The Compendium had been fervently desired by the participants in the International Catechetical Congress of October 2002, which gave voice to a need widely felt in the Church. My beloved Predecessor, recognizing this desire, decided in February 2003 to begin preparation of the text by entrusting the work to a Commission of Cardinals, over which I presided, and which was assisted by various experts. In the course of the work, a draft of the Compendium was submitted to all the Cardinals and the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops, the vast majority of whom evaluated the text favourably.

[snip]

Given on 28 June 2005, the vigil of the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the first year of my Pontificate.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU%20PROPRIO
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compe...hive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU PROPRIO
I should mention that the Vatican:Holy See has removed all traces of Teilhard from the archives.

 

[StAnastasia]

Anastasia, do you and those you name above agree with the entire contents of the Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Here is just a snippet it :Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Blower, you launch an inquisition that is hard to comprehend!

 

[wildleafblower]

Anastasia, let’s face it, if you can read than obviously you are able to comprehend but have failed to respond so let me try it again. Do you agree with what Pope Benedict XVI wrote below? A simple answer from you will let me know if you agree with the POPE who is the teaching authority of the Church. Here it is:

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Paul VI Audience Hall
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Saint Paul (15):
The Apostle’s teaching on the relation between Adam and Christ
Dear Brothers and Sisters, In today’s Catechesis we shall reflect on the relations between Adam and Christ, defined by St Paul in the well-known passage of the Letter to the Romans (5: 12-21) in which he gives the Church the essential outline of the doctrine on original sin. Indeed, Paul had already introduced the comparison between our first progenitor and Christ while addressing faith in the Resurrection in the First Letter to the Corinthians: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive… “The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15: 22, 45). With Romans 5: 12-21, the comparison between Christ and Adam becomes more articulate and illuminating: Paul traces the history of salvation from Adam to the Law and from the latter to Christ. At the centre of the scene it is not so much Adam, with the consequences of his sin for humanity, who is found as much as it is Jesus Christ and the grace which was poured out on humanity in abundance through him. The repetition of the “all the more” with regard to Christ stresses that the gift received in him far surpasses Adam’s sin and its consequent effects on humanity, so that Paul could reach his conclusion: “but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rm 5: 20). The comparison that Paul draws between Adam and Christ therefore sheds light on the inferiority of the first man compared to the prevalence of the second.

On the other hand, it is precisely in order to highlight the immeasurable gift of grace in Christ that Paul mentions Adam’s sin. One could say that if it were not to demonstrate the centrality of grace, he would not have dwelt on the treatment of sin which “came into the world through one man and death through sin” (Rm 5: 12). For this reason, if, in the faith of the Church, an awareness of the dogma of original sin developed, it is because it is inseparably linked to another dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. The consequence of this is that we must never treat the sin of Adam and of humanity separately from the salvific context, in other words, without understanding them within the horizon of justification in Christ.

However, as people of today we must ask ourselves: what is this original sin? What does St Paul teach, what does the Church teach? Is this doctrine still sustainable today? Many think that in light of the history of evolution, there is no longer room for the doctrine of a first sin that then would have permeated the whole of human history. And, as a result, the matter of Redemption and of the Redeemer would also lose its foundation. Therefore, does original sin exist or not? In order to respond, we must distinguish between two aspects of the doctrine on original sin. There exists an empirical aspect, that is, a reality that is concrete, visible, I would say tangible to all. And an aspect of mystery concerning the ontological foundation of this event. The empirical fact is that a contradiction exists in our being.
[snip due to space contraints - please read in its entirety.]

Thus, the existence of the power of evil in the human heart and in human history is an undeniable fact. The question is: how can this evil be explained? In the history of thought, Christian faith aside, there exists a key explanation of this duality, with different variations. This model says: being in itself is contradictory, it bears within it both good and evil. In antiquity, this idea implied the opinion that two equally primal principles existed: a good principle and a bad principle. This duality would be insuperable; the two principles are at the same level, so this contradiction from the being’s origin would always exist. The contradiction of our being would therefore only reflect the contrary nature of the two divine principles, so to speak. In the evolutionist, atheist version of the world the same vision returns in a new form. Although in this conception the vision of being is monist, it supposes that being as such bears within itself both evil and good from the outset. Being itself is not simply good, but open to good and to evil. Evil is equally primal with the good. And human history would develop only the model already present in all of the previous evolution. What Christians call original sin would in reality be merely the mixed nature of being, a mixture of good and evil which, according to atheist thought, belong to the same fabric of being. This is a fundamentally desperate view: if this is the case, evil is invincible. In the end all that counts is one’s own interest. All progress would necessarily be paid for with a torrent of evil and those who wanted to serve progress would have to agree to pay this price. Politics is fundamentally structured on these premises and we see the effects of this. In the end, this modern way of thinking can create only sadness and cynicism.

[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Teilhard and Rahner, Schillebeeckz and Tillich, Haught and Peacocke, Stoeger and Polkinghorne, Peters and Delio – these are the voices of the future.
StAnastasia

And they shall be your judges.

You also completely mischaracterized my position. Because one is wont to throw away the Fathers and the Magisterium, that doesn’t mean one is reactionary or anti-intellectual. Our Church has authority and that authority rests on the veracity of the eternal revelation handed on to us by the Lord and His Apostles.

I cited examples of recent history rooted in Biblical/historical precedent.

No one is free to promulgate in the name of the Holy Mother Church things that contradict that which the Church has already closed the doors on as established doctrine. That which is venerable, orthodox, embedded in the experience of the Saints, explained in the writings of the Fathers, proclaimed in the Encyclicals of the Supreme Pontiffs and bears the fruit of the Gospel should be lightly forsaken for novelties introduced by profane science and documentary hypothesists.

Clearly the fruit of evolutionary theory is death, destruction, utopianism, religious persecution, war, atheism, iconoclasm, and immorality. When syncretized with Christianity it produces doubt, confusion, heterodoxy, antisupernaturalism, and finally apostasy. The Churches of Europe and Russia are ample testimony.