The Church's position on faith and science - any objections?

[alacoque]

geoformeo: Great post! Unfortunately, all of us on these fora possess a human nature and the effects of original sin - which can tend to make us obtuse, darken our intelligence and make us unreasonably in love with our own ideas. Your post was wonderful, but I fear will not be affective for anyone who’s only agenda is an ‘agenda’!

God bless you

 

[StAnastasia]

1. With regard to the question in the OP, my answer is no. A Catholic scientist myself (yes, a theistic evolutionist), the Church’s position is spot-on.
   God bless you all.

A brilliant post, geoformeo, thoughtful, gentle, and Christian! I have numerous friends who are both scientists and Catholic priesrts, and who see no contradiction between their two vocations. Essentially the “conflict” or “warfare” thesis rests on a misunderstanding of the purpose, methods, and conclusions of science and of religion and/or theology.

Let me recommend a lucid critique of “intelligent design creationism” (and, by implication, of “Young Earth” creationism) issued by the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) http://www.issr.org.uk/

"The International Society for Science and Religion is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths (see www.issr.org.uk). It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion. Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language. Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels. In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science - just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism)."

 

[cassini]

Cassini - have I got this right? It’s now ‘modernist’ to believe the discoveries and ongoing contributions [secular] science provides? Who determined this was a modernist view? :

From Pope Pius X’s Pascendi.

*Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant*.

The Methods of Modernists

18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

Now on other threads I have tried to get a theology of a hominid zapped with a human soul or an Eve from an Adam, or an Original Sin by way of evolution, that could be called Catholic. But guess what? No takers, All we get ate theological platatudes like those above.

 

[StAnastasia]

All we get ate theological platatudes like those above.

Do you use the spell-checker?

 

[edwest2]

From Pope Pius X’s Pascendi.

*Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant*.

The Methods of Modernists

18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

Now on other threads I have tried to get a theology of a hominid zapped with a human soul or an Eve from an Adam, or an Original Sin by way of evolution, that could be called Catholic. But guess what? No takers, All we get ate theological platatudes like those above.

Thank you, very much. Modernism is still very much alive here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you, very much. Modernism is still very much alive here.Peace,Ed

And that’s a problem…why?

 

[cassini]

Do you use the spell-checker?

oN.

 

[alacoque]

From Pope Pius X’s Pascendi.

*Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant*.

The Methods of Modernists

18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

Now on other threads I have tried to get a theology of a hominid zapped with a human soul or an Eve from an Adam, or an Original Sin by way of evolution, that could be called Catholic. But guess what? No takers, All we get ate theological platatudes like those above.

Thank you, Cassini, for your further explanation. I still don’t understand what your main issue is, unless is it with those people who (as you seem to hint at in your post above) claim the superiority / truth of science over and instead of the teaching of the Church.

You didn’t quote or mention any of the rest of my post, the point of which I will make one more time. NB. I don’t know if your problem is with the Church, or with individual people or what.

What our previous Holy Fathers have said notwithstanding, here is the teaching of the Church (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) - which cannot and will never differ with any dogmatic teaching, writing or pronoucement of a Holy Pontiff from any era. (courtesy of the Holy Spirit)

**The Catechism says:**337

**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.” See also Chapters 282-289 of the Catechism.

Evolution is not a fact, but a set of theories. Some of the theories are very compelling, such as fossil records and observed micro evolution within species, while many aspects of evolutionary theory have been proved wrong by science itself. The irreducible complexity of each species is something modern science has been unable to explain.

A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

1. God created everything out of nothing (“ex nihlo” in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

**

 

[reggieM]

This might be of interest to those who site the “Wedge Strategy” as an argument against ID theory. In a long article arguing about how Science and Religion cannot be reconciled, prominent evolutionary-scientist, Jerry Coyne gives the real reason why scientists publicly claim that there is no wedge between science and religion …

Evolutionist Admits Scientists Have Been Lying

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence–the existence of religious scientists–is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
– Evolutionist, Jerry Coyne

Given that citing the “Wedge” was considered enough to invalidate ID theory, this admission by Coyne should be enough to prove that evolutionary theory is false.

 

[cassini]

Thank you, Cassini, for your further explanation. I still don’t understand what your main issue is, unless is it with those people who (as you seem to hint at in your post above) claim the superiority / truth of science over and instead of the teaching of the Church.

You didn’t quote or mention any of the rest of my post, the point of which I will make one more time. NB. I don’t know if your problem is with the Church, or with individual people or what.

What our previous Holy Fathers have said notwithstanding, here is the teaching of the Church (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) - which cannot and will never differ with any dogmatic teaching, writing or pronoucement of a Holy Pontiff from any era. (courtesy of the Holy Spirit)

**The Catechism says:**337

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.” See also Chapters 282-289 of the Catechism.

Evolution is not a fact, but a set of theories. Some of the theories are very compelling, such as fossil records and observed micro evolution within species, while many aspects of evolutionary theory have been proved wrong by science itself. The irreducible complexity of each species is something modern science has been unable to explain.

A Catholic may interpret the book of Genesis literally or as an allegory. However any theory that is believed by a Catholic must meet the following criteria:

1. God created everything out of nothing (“ex nihlo” in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

My problem is with the Modernists, be they Churchmen or lay people who between them have destroyed the Church of Tradition. I threw my CCC in the bin when I read the bit about God directing the evolutionist scientists with their wonderful truths. You see how far things have gone when you read a CCC with that blasphemy in it.

 

[cassini]

This might be of interest to those who site the “Wedge Strategy” as an argument against ID theory. In a long article arguing about how Science and Religion cannot be reconciled, prominent evolutionary-scientist, Jerry Coyne gives the real reason why scientists publicly claim that there is no wedge between science and religion …

Evolutionist Admits Scientists Have Been Lying

This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence–the existence of religious scientists–is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
– Evolutionist, Jerry Coyne

Given that citing the “Wedge” was considered enough to invalidate ID theory, this admission by Coyne should be enough to prove that evolutionary theory is false.

Very interesting Reggie, But here is a further dilemma. The fact is that Catholic faith and science can be reconciled, they have to be because God is Author of both. But there is true science and a false science. The true science is the one that is one with Catholic faith. Alas the Devil, Lucifer has promoted false science since Copernicus and it is this ‘consensus’ false science that now claims the title ‘science’. Thus the road of true science was abandoned some hundreds of years ago and all but a few adhere to false science. For those few that have endeavoured to follow the road of true science and traditional theology there has been a long campainf WITHIN the Church and without to totally undermine and insult and degrade any who oppose the false science. Study the many hundreds of posts on this forum and you will see the reception given to ‘fundamentalists’.

You know false science if it cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic theology. I have sought endlessly from all the evolutionist know-alls a true theology that fits in with the dogmas on man and Original sin and they cannot make one up that is not theological rubbish. Just read IN THE BEGINNING and you will see what I mean.

 

[reggieM]

Very interesting Reggie, But here is a further dilemma. The fact is that Catholic faith and science can be reconciled, they have to be because God is Author of both. But there is true science and a false science. The true science is the one that is one with Catholic faith. Alas the Devil, Lucifer has promoted false science since Copernicus and it is this ‘consensus’ false science that now claims the title ‘science’. Thus the road of true science was abandoned some hundreds of years ago and all but a few adhere to false science. For those few that have endeavoured to follow the road of true science and traditional theology there has been a long campainf WITHIN the Church and without to totally undermine and insult and degrade any who oppose the false science. Study the many hundreds of posts on this forum and you will see the reception given to ‘fundamentalists’.

You know false science if it cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic theology. I have sought endlessly from all the evolutionist know-alls a true theology that fits in with the dogmas on man and Original sin and they cannot make one up that is not theological rubbish. Just read IN THE BEGINNING and you will see what I mean.

Interesting points - I agree. Although, I don’t know if it’s worth using the term “true science”. The term “science” is just a word. It has been taken over by ideologues and propagandists who use it to manipulate the public and get money and fame (Mr. Coyne reveals that clearly). In the past, theology was considered a “science” (the queen of the sciences). But I think you’re right, in any case – there is false science and that is the dominant idea that we face today.

Physical science is limited to understanding the superficial aspects of reality – matter and natural laws.

 

[alacoque]

My problem is with the Modernists, be they Churchmen or lay people who between them have destroyed the Church of Tradition. I threw my CCC in the bin when I read the bit about God directing the evolutionist scientists with their wonderful truths. You see how far things have gone when you read a CCC with that blasphemy in it.

Wow…It sounds like, bottom line, in addressing what you see as a conflict between what you believe and think is right and what the Church teaches (the CCC reflects this teaching of course), you seem to have decided that your own belief is superior. I understand from reading all you’ve written here as well as your explanations that you feel you have many good reasons, but regardless of all that, it is still, at the end of the day, a preference for your own assessment and belief over that of the Church.

I cannot agree, of course, since I submit and subscribe to the infallibility of the Church’s doctrinal / dogmatic teachings. To refer to any of the infallible teachings of the Body of Christ as ‘blasphemy’ is not something I will or would ever do.

So I humbly withdraw at this point. I have no more to say on the issue.

God bless you and His angels be with you always.

 

[cassini]

Wow…It sounds like, bottom line, in addressing what you see as a conflict between what you believe and think is right and what the Church teaches (the CCC reflects this teaching of course), you seem to have decided that your own belief is superior. I understand from reading all you’ve written here as well as your explanations that you feel you have many good reasons, but regardless of all that, it is still, at the end of the day, a preference for your own assessment and belief over that of the Church.

I cannot agree, of course, since I submit and subscribe to the infallibility of the Church’s doctrinal / dogmatic teachings. To refer to any of the infallible teachings of the Body of Christ as ‘blasphemy’ is not something I will or would ever do.

So I humbly withdraw at this point. I have no more to say on the issue.

God bless you and His angels be with you always.

" you seem to have decided that your own belief is superior." Here is the problem Alacoque, for if it was My belief I would be the Protestant. It is not my belief I defend but that of ALL Churchmen up to the time of the traitors, those Churchmen who under the influence of ‘science’ decided to REJECT the Faith of our Fathers and conjure up a compromise Catholic faith that is the Devil’s CHAOS.

For example, evolution is based on death from the beginning. an evolved Adam is the product of DEATH. Yet Catholic theology tells us that Original Sin brought about death. So, how in God’s name can that be reconciled without REJECTING the traditional theology on Original Sin, the dogma that the whole Catholic Faith is based.

Anyone who presumes to tell me that God is directing evolutionary scientists - most of whom are ATHEISTS - is committing blasphemy. The CCC is only a book, it is not an official papal statement, or the Magisterium as you would make it out to be. Ever read the Dutch Catechism of the 1980s.

I too would love to depart from such arguments but tradition tells us at confirmation we became Church militant. So, as long as there are those who utter aberrations and heresies, someone has to fight the good fight.
"

 

[StAnastasia]

Interesting points - I agree. Although, I don’t know if it’s worth using the term “true science”. The term “science” is just a word. It has been taken over by ideologues and propagandists who use it to manipulate the public and get money and fame.

Reggie, are you and Cassini on the same page in asserting the Copernicus was wrong, and in denying the the earth goes around the sound?

 

[reggieM]

" you seem to have decided that your own belief is superior." Here is the problem Alacoque, for if it was My belief I would be the Protestant. It is not my belief I defend but that of ALL Churchmen up to the time of the traitors, those Churchmen who under the influence of ‘science’ decided to REJECT the Faith of our Fathers and conjure up a compromise Catholic faith that is the Devil’s CHAOS.

For example, evolution is based on death from the beginning. an evolved Adam is the product of DEATH. Yet Catholic theology tells us that Original Sin brought about death. So, how in God’s name can that be reconciled without REJECTING the traditional theology on Original Sin, the dogma that the whole Catholic Faith is based.

Anyone who presumes to tell me that God is directing evolutionary scientists - most of whom are ATHEISTS - is committing blasphemy. The CCC is only a book, it is not an official papal statement, or the Magisterium as you would make it out to be. Ever read the Dutch Catechism of the 1980s.

I too would love to depart from such arguments but tradition tells us at confirmation we became Church militant. So, as long as there are those who utter aberrations and heresies, someone has to fight the good fight.
"

The problem here is that the Magisterium of the Church is the arbiter of Tradition - the supreme judge here on earth. If we find something that is an apparent contradiction or seems false, we can raise our concern and seek a better explanation or clarification. But we can’t conclude that the Magisterial teaching is false.
The CCC is an expression of the sacred magisterium – so different from the Dutch Catechism in that way. At the same time, the CCC is not protected by infallibility in every word or line. There could be mistakes in the text and teachings that need to be reformed with better, clearer and more accurate expressions.

So, it’s best to present the problem to the Church and seek a clarification. That’s the traditional method for solving apparent contradictions in the text. If you don’t get a hearing right away, it’s best to persist - unless it can be shown that your argument is not well-founded.

 

[cassini]

The problem here is that the Magisterium of the Church is the arbiter of Tradition - the supreme judge here on earth. If we find something that is an apparent contradiction or seems false, we can raise our concern and seek a better explanation or clarification. But we can’t conclude that the Magisterial teaching is false.
.
So, it’s best to present the problem to the Church and seek a clarification. That’s the traditional method for solving apparent contradictions in the text. If you don’t get a hearing right away, it’s best to persist - unless it can be shown that your argument is not well-founded.

Reggie, I couldn’t agree with you more on the above. There are however two problems here.

1. The magisterium, i.e., the pope when defining and declaring a doctrine in a positive or negative way. Now take the 1616 decree, papal in every way, declared by the Church, the Magisterium, in 1633 and 1820 as immutable. But what happened. That teaching was/is totally ignored. Ignored by who, the magisterium of post 1835, or Churchmen and Catholics since 1835? I am constantly being told the Magisterium, the Church everyone is supposed to be faithful to, has rejected the heresy of a fixed sun. Now in my book the Magisterium that FIRST defines and declares a doctrine is the CHURCH and that is the magisteriums final word. I am correct therefore to say the magisterium has never contradicted the 1616 decree.
2. Pope Pius XII agrees with your latter paragraph in his Humani Generis. But what is the situation. Anti-evolutionist scientists and theologians (if any still exist) are NOT invited onto the PAS or to conferences on evolution supposedly run in the name of the Catholic Church. Where does a Catholic seek clarification? All you will get is opinion, no official papal declaration. Lucifer has compromised the Catholic Church with his Copernicans and Evolutionists.

 

[alacoque]

" you seem to have decided that your own belief is superior." Here is the problem Alacoque, for if it was My belief I would be the Protestant. It is not my belief I defend but that of ALL Churchmen up to the time of the traitors, those Churchmen who under the influence of ‘science’ decided to REJECT the Faith of our Fathers and conjure up a compromise Catholic faith that is the Devil’s CHAOS.

For example, evolution is based on death from the beginning. an evolved Adam is the product of DEATH. Yet Catholic theology tells us that Original Sin brought about death. So, how in God’s name can that be reconciled without REJECTING the traditional theology on Original Sin, the dogma that the whole Catholic Faith is based.

Anyone who presumes to tell me that God is directing evolutionary scientists - most of whom are ATHEISTS - is committing blasphemy. The CCC is only a book, it is not an official papal statement, or the Magisterium as you would make it out to be. Ever read the Dutch Catechism of the 1980s.

I too would love to depart from such arguments but tradition tells us at confirmation we became Church militant. So, as long as there are those who utter aberrations and heresies, someone has to fight the good fight.
"

Cassini…I withdrew fromm the discussion on this, but here I am . I want to clarify my position. And fyi, in case there’s a question, I don’t blindly follow any crowd or group; I’m about the furthest thing from a ‘modernist’ you’ll find (ask my kids and some acquaintances - including my truly ‘modernist’ pastor!)

You said: *“Anyone who presumes to tell me that God is directing evolutionary scientists - most of whom are ATHEISTS - is committing blasphemy.” * That’s nonsense - I don’t believe you have a count of how many are atheists and how many are not; this is only your opinion. God directs everything at all times. This is HIS creation/world/universe and, in the end, we barely know ‘squat’ about it! God may be beyond the Atheists, but they are not beyond HIM!

**1) The “Faith of our Fathers” CANNOT differ from the faith today. (As long as we’re talking about the faith ‘defined’ by the Church as dogma.) The promise of Christ to His Church, via the Holy Spirit absolutely and eternally prevents this.To say the Church teaches (as dogma) now, something she did NOT teach in the past, is error. The infallible teaching of the Church CANNOT change or differ from era to era. If we perceive such a change, we are either confusing infallible teaching with opinion or we are in error about the teaching of the Church. Those are the only two options.

1. The CCC is NOT *“just a book”. *It is a compendium of the dogmas and teachings of the Church. Technically, you are correct - The CCC itself is not infallible. But, the doctrines contained in it have the approval of the Pope and Bishops of the Church united with him. We are obliged to accept them in that sense in which they are offered/given and to avoid what does not concord/agree with them. There are, in the CCC, doctrines which are the personal judgement of the Pope but which have not been declared as Dogma. They are “infallible” in the sense that they don’t violate what has consistently and constantly been taught by the Church from the beginning but do not have an infallible definition behind them - no Pope or Ecumenical Council of the Church has defined them Dogmatically but they do express the mind and will of the Pope and the Bishops in their Ordinary Magisterium.

From a practical standpoint, the laity must accept all the teachings/doctrine in the CCC with, at the least, the same adherence, i.e., religious submission of intellect and will. Not accepting those non-Dogmatic statements would not constitute heresy under Canon Law and we may question these teachings **within the limits **laid down for such questioning. **

You can call the CCC ‘blasphemy’ and ‘throw it in the bin’, but this is not in keeping with your duty of obedience and submission to the Church. You state: “For example, evolution is based on death from the beginning. an evolved Adam is the product of DEATH. Yet Catholic theology tells us that Original Sin brought about death.” In my understanding of what you’re saying, this is a confusion of physical death with spiritual death. But, whatever - God did what He did with creation however He did it (I’m not taking a position one way or the other viz your premise) - and no individual knows the mind of God or His Ways…NONE! We do not create “Truth”; we disover it and conform ourselves to it - and “Truth” is not someTHING; it is someONE!

The Church DOES NOT TEACH either evolution OR its opposite. Souls can be faithful, holy Catholics and believe whichever they want. In your belief you are well within the faith. But in accusing the Church of error because she does NOT infallibly proclaim what you believe, does not comport with your obligation of fidelity. The teachings of the Church (today) “do not violate what has consistently and constantly been taught by the Church from the beginning”.

Finally, you say: *“I too would love to depart from such arguments but tradition tells us at confirmation we became Church militant. So, as long as there are those who utter aberrations and heresies, someone has to fight the good fight.” * We are called to fight against error, principalities and powers - NOT to fight our own Mother, the Church.

I don’t discount or disrespect you in any way…but others, wiser than I, can henceforth debate your points. God bless you, Cassini…you are in my prayers (not because I think you need conversion…but because you’re a child of God, my brother in Christ, and worthy of prayer, as we all are!

 

[reggieM]

Cassini, Thanks for your reply - the problems you mention are important. Here’s how I would deal with them.
First, if the 1616, 1633 and 1820 papal decrees are infallible dogma, then we have to assent to them and any attempts to reverse or contradict them would be heretical. I agree with that. But I can’t see that those decrees are ex cathedra or even infallible by means of the ordinary magisterium.
First, we could say that those decrees simply represent the traditional teaching, handed down unchanged. That seems true – thus, it’s sacred tradition and infallible.
But the problem I see here is that Catholic teaching is only infallible in matters of revealed faith and morals.
So, if we said that the papal decrees regarding the sun’s movement were revealed matters of Faith, then there would be no reason to argue about the science. Secular science could say whatever it wants. We would merely say that the Church revealed the way the sun moves, and that’s it. Our argument would point to sacred teaching – just like we do with the doctrine of the Trinity. The scientific aspect would be irrelevant, for the most part. Personally, I can’t see that kind of thing being a matter of faith, although it does have theological consequences.

Anti-evolutionist scientists and theologians (if any still exist) are NOT invited onto the PAS or to conferences on evolution supposedly run in the name of the Catholic Church. Where does a Catholic seek clarification? All you will get is opinion, no official papal declaration. Lucifer has compromised the Catholic Church with his Copernicans and Evolutionists.

This is true in many ways. There are anti-evolutionists, but they are disregarded and openly mocked. The European Catholic academic community has spent the last 30 years trying to compromise with Enlightenment atheism. The Templeton foundation event was a political posture – they clearly weren’t interested in hearing any legitimate concerns about evolution.
So your question is a good one – how and where can a Catholic appeal against the seemingly-dominant teaching which appears to be in serious error? Well, I think it has to go through the normal channels. It has to start with the bishops. There are a few friendly voices. If the arguments are coherent, they will move to the next level. It can take years – but the truth will win, especially in the hierarchy established by Christ and given His gifts of grace.
Right now, the arguments against evolution are greeted with silence or ridicule or are just ignored. But that’s obviously not a very coherent or convincing response.
There’s no way the Holy See can deny God’s power in nature (and the creator of nature). Lots of claims about “theistic evolution” are proposed, but we can see that the evolutionary-scientific community laughs at those (privately) while pretending to accept them publicly (in order to secure funding).
We shouldn’t despair and retreat to our own private understandings of these matters though (and judging tradition on our own is making it subjective). It’s difficult to get a hearing, especially when the hierarchy is obsessed with the desire of winning approval from secularists and atheistic academics. It’s an uphilll battle, but I think our task is to be persistent and clear, and to continue to request answers which are consistent with the Deposit of Faith. Thus far, all we really have are some ambiguous and contradictory notions about how Darwinism supposedly reveals the power of God.

 

[Stephentlig]

I havnt followed all this thread but I just wanna jump in here and say.

who here is gonna contend that Jesus Christ could not build what he wanted to build in literally 24hours?

as for wanting to know how Eve came from Adam…you have not the brains nor the authority to figure that one all out by yourself. its called ‘‘Faith’’
The devil is all about self importance, he wants to deceive you into thinking your smart and that you can actually figure God out, and like him in the beginning, he wants you to think that you can be God.

Scientists say there is an explanation for everything without giving the explanation, its what they are well known and famous for, its a rubbish job if you ask me, because all the evolutionists do is live in a world of fiction. I prefer the truth myself, and St.Padre Pio is physical proof of God and his existence. God does not lie ( Titus:1:2) if he wanted us to know how we came about exactly he’d let us know, and he has let us know, with the ‘‘simple’’ account of creation in Genesis and he here on this forum who is gonna contend with me that God is not a simple God but a complicated one, I would have him read this scriptural verse from the Book of Wisdom. 1:1’‘Seek him in simplicity of heart;’’

God bless and take care
Stephen