S
Sideline
Guest
Did anyone actually read what I wrote? I didn’t say they were stupid. I said they were stupid,IF they said that you are not permitted to believe in evolution. Which they didn’t.
- Status
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Sideline writes:
Here is the Lateran IV definition again:
Peter
I read what you wrote and particularly the condtional “IF”. This was why I pointed out that:
It was also why I recommended you should give a good reason, as you appear to disgree with it.
Here is the Lateran IV definition again:
It was the simultaneity of creation of all things together at the beginning that precludes evolution theory.
Peter
C
cascherman
Guest
Wow, I’ve never seen a more sound comparison.
Dentistry and Theology.
Technology (learned) vs. God’s Revelation (given)
Dentistry and Theology.
Technology (learned) vs. God’s Revelation (given)
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Is it Catholic Dogma that Eve was created from Adam?
No matter how many times I ask this I’m always answered with silence. Why? Wouldn’t the answer to this question have some kind of bearing on the extent of evolution apart from any intervention of God who started it?
No matter how many times I ask this I’m always answered with silence. Why? Wouldn’t the answer to this question have some kind of bearing on the extent of evolution apart from any intervention of God who started it?
T
TMC
Guest
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I don’t know Peter. It seems to me that God indeed would have simultaneously created all things at the same time-- because God himself can move outside of time-space. In order words, since he is infinite he is not in any way limited by time and space like we are.
To God, since he is self-existant and eternal, all things would have happened simultaneously at the “same time” to him. But to us, locked as we are in time and space, the appearance of the simultaneous divine creation event could indeed manifest within his creation in stages, just as the Genesis account claims.
Consequently, if your interpretation is correct, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that recent popes are in error on this manner-- since they do permit theistic evolution. Obviously, I don’t think the current popes are in error. I do, however, suspect there may be a flaw in one’s understanding of God’s “simul” creation occuring outside of time and space though.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Eve coming from Adam is symbolic of both (1) the Son being eternally generated from the Father, and (2) the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father.
I’d rather not.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I thought Eve coming from Adam’s side is prophetic of Mary being pierced with Christ. More particularly, Eve’s existence coming from Adam’s side prophesied of Mary’s redeeming qualities issued forth from the side of her Divine Son.
John 19:34:
Then lets’ come back to Mary’s side then.I’d rather not.
If the first Eve played a role in the fall, then it seems the New Eve must play a role in the redemption.
For example, St. Irenaeus wrote in 189 AD:
Irenaeus said quite clearly that Mary became the “cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race”. It should be remembered that Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the Apostle John himself. This shows that even the early Christians recognized that Mary played a part in the redemption (howbeit subordinate to Christ).
So how exactly does Eve coming from Adam become symbolic of both (1) the Son being eternally generated from the Father, and (2) the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just don’t understand the wisdom you’re presenting and would like to understand it better. I’ve never heard this before.
O
Orogeny
Guest
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I think we’re dealing with a narrative structure (Eve coming from Adam; Eve playing a role in the Fall) that has multiple levels of interpretation. One level might revolve around the generation/procession of the Son and Holy Spirit; another level, the future role of Mary as Theotokos. So the levels need not contradict one another.
I agree that the early Christians believed that Eve was a real individual, but many also believed in a literal 6-day creation. I think what’s more important is the idea that “Eve” (whoever “Eve” was in physical reality) played a part in the “Fall” (in however way the “Fall” manifested itself in physical reality). I believe Origen had some useful ideas in this regard (but don’t ask me what they were!), but if one were to speculate, one might imagine that Eve represents the body and Adam represents the mind (or psyche). God created the body (or “Eve”) by using the mind (or “Adam”) as the template: whatever is in the mind, becomes manifested in the body (a very ancient proverb; Jesus referred to as “Whatever is outside does not defile, but rather what is inside is what defiles”).
Furthermore, the desires of the body (or “Eve”) led the mind (or “Adam”) into acquiescing to sin, or disobeying the spirit of God. Didn’t Paul say something about his mind not doing what his mind wanted to do, but what his body wanted to do?
Of course, Eve may have been an (pre)historical person, but I think that the Eve accounts in Genesis may also be describing more universal events in human history, and the belief in Eve on the part of the ECF reflected ECF belief in not so much the literal reality of Eve but (1) the power of the body over the mind (as I described above); and (2) the Fall and Mary’s role in reversing the Fall (in which even though was the body that led to the Fall, it was Mary’s body that provided the body for Jesus, thus reversing the Fall).
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I guess I’m going to have to read through this more. There are some things that I find hard to understand. I have to admit that I believe that Adam and Eve are real people too.
Would this view be compatable if they were considered real?
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Peter, Peter, Peter tisk tisk. Hummm…Here is your story:**Biblical Chronology, Evolution and the Big Bang **
Peter Wilders
REMNANT COLUMNIST, Monaco
[snip]
Science misled the world and the Church hierarchy, but now science must do its mea culpa and lead scientists and theologians alike back to before the error took place. Theoretically it can do so without delay. After all, the scientific data is there and, as every scientist knows, observations tested by laboratory experiment are the strongest proof that science can provide. This proof has now been provided and has shown that the principles upon which the geological time-scale was based are not only questionable but wrong. So there is no scientific reason to hesitate. Unfortunately the materialism engendered by belief in limitless time and a natural explanation of origins is not easily given up. If it were, it would mean reverting to moral values which had previously been renounced as constraints upon man’s rights. It would mean science taking second place to the Creator.
[snip]
remnantnewspaper.com/archive-2005-0630-evolution.htm
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/archive-2005-0630-evolution.htm
remnantnewspaper.com/archives.htm
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/archives.htm
Did you read **The Curious Case of the One-Man Band **
Berthault’s Work: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?
by Alec MacAndrew?
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
And you should review my postings elsewhere on different topics. And you need to find the three sources I keep asking people to look at. Do you know what they are? Do you even care to take the time to read all the stuff I have been sharing with people that support evolution and the Big Bang and VATICAN II
. Ho hum, twiddle de de…ah…here’s more good news that supports what the Vatican supports.**
Third Year WMAP data refines cosmology ** by Alec MacAndrew
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm
oh, I’m sorry to be the one to have to inform you that you still don’t understand science. Well, gee whiz, I’ll help ya out
An Introduction to the History and Basic Scientific Concepts in Evolution by Alec MacAndrew (Boy, I remember when I asked him to write an Introduction to the theory of evolution back in 2003!)
evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
http://www.evolutionpages.com/intro_evolution.htm
I hope you learned something brand spanking new today. Shortly, I’ll be on a long holiday.
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Orogeny asks:
Whether in consequence one may consider him or herself a heretic is their affair not mine.
Peter
No. The purpose of my postings has been to discuss the content of the Lateran IV definition of Creation.
Whether in consequence one may consider him or herself a heretic is their affair not mine.
Peter
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
wildleafblower writes
dogmas under discussion as the central teaching on Creation.
Peter
His expressions leave me puzzled. None of the several references he gives throws light upon the Lateran IV/Vatican
dogmas under discussion as the central teaching on Creation.
Peter
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, since you clearly don’t want to admit the logical conclusion of your statements, let’s try this from a different angle.
Is it allowable for any Catholic to teach that evolution is true? If so, how does that jive with your claim of infallibility? If not, are there any reprecussions for teaching something that is contrary to an infallible teaching?
By the way, I doubt that heretics consider themselves such. You seem to be of the opinion that something is not heretical unless the person committing the heresy considers themselves a heretic. If that were true, I would say that there have been very few if any heretics in the history of the Church.
Peace
Tim
W
wildleafblower
Guest
His expressions leave me puzzled. None of the several references he gives throws light upon the Lateran IV/Vatican
dogmas under discussion as the central teaching on Creation.
Peter
wildleafblower;3010237 said:
You missed the mark again Peter
I’m a woman. You also negleted to notice that I caught your scriptual error which is ancient. Go thee to the Vatican and read the 2002 New American Bible, the new Catechism of the Chruch (which is the teachings of the Chruch), and Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.Read about Dogma:
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS
Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, on the 8th day of September, 1907, the fifth year of our Pontificate.
Its Evolution
*13. Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. *
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html
I suggest you also read this document:
Compendium OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
16. 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.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
B
buffalo
Guest
Is it Catholic Dogma that Eve was created from Adam?
It seems it is:
DID THE HUMAN BODY EVOLVE NATURALLY?
A FORGOTTEN PAPAL DECLARATION
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t know how to do the quote boxes inside of quote boxes, so I will explain that the above refer to whether it is dogma that Eve was created from Adam, and whether the answer to that question has an impact on the extent of evolution.
First, I admit to being deliberately obscure with my one word responses, for which I apologize.
I don’t have time right now to give a very complete answer, but the simple answer is that I have never seen any dogmatic declaration on the details of creation. I know that the Church accepts the creation stories as myth and allegory, while at the same time allowing belief in their literal truth.
My opinion is that this part of the story, correctly understood, is a beautiful symbol of the partnership of man and woman, and the equality of man and woman. I think it is meant to show that man and woman are of the same matter, and each created by God. (But sometimes the exact same story is used to explain that man is superior to woman and that woman was created for man, like a possession.)
I would point out that earlier in Genesis God is described as creating man and woman at the same time, and I don’t see how both can be literally true. (Although some have suggested there were two different women created, which is a whole nother barrel of fish.)
I agree that the creation myth is a tradition, and I simply don’t know whether any Early Church Fathers did not believe it was literally true. It wouldn’t surprise me if they all did, and it wouldn’t surprise me if some did not. I think its possible that some would say they didn’t know or care if it is literally true because it is not offered for its literal truth.
I don’t think any of this has anything to do with belief in evolution. I don’t know if Eve was a real person. She could have been, but I kind of doubt it. I think that Ahimsa’s posts on this make a lot of good points (although I have not had time to digest and see if I agree with all of them.) Whether Eve was a real person that was the first ensouled human after a long evolution, a “specially created” person created from Adam’s side, a “specially created” person made in some other way, an allegorical way of understanding all early people, or something else altogether, doesn’t matter much to me (other than as intellectual curiousity). To me, in each of those possibilities she was created by God, and the importance is to try to grasp what the story of Adam and Eve can teach me about faith, love and my duties to and relationship with God. The rest is unimportant.
- Status