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

[Stephentlig]

No, I mean precisely what I said. I called the creationist sources that you were using liars. They were telling you untruths. Both ICR and AiG for instance are Protestant so at least some of the things they say are incorrect.

Rossum, i have not taken from their interpretation, I take from the infallible interpretation of the church.
Tradition / Church Fathers
The early Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief that God directly created all things out of nothing (not by an evolutionary process of secondary causes). None of the Fathers’ views ever supported the possibility of an evolutionary process in creation. The Fathers also agreed that God created the universe in six literal days. St. Augustine introduced an alternative theory which proposed that God may have created the entire world in an instant (not in six days, and certainly not in millions of years). However, Augustine also said that a six-day creation was possible as well. Are the Fathers’ views important to us as we interpret the Scriptures? The answer is: Yes, very important.

In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8), one of the Church’s most important councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, infallibly taught that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” This infallible teaching was restated by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Hence, the Church definitively teaches that the faithful cannot depart from the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous in their interpretation of Scripture on a point of Revelation. This also means that we must defer to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers in all matters of Revelation, not just religious matters.

Pope Benedict XV stated that “by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church]…wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible…” Spiritus Paraclitus, September 15, 1920. The pope condemned contrary opinions by stating “For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines…is left to the feebleness of the writer…But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed.” Ibid.

Why are the Fathers important? The Church teaches that the Fathers are important because they received the rule of interpretations from the successors to the apostles and the apostles themselves. The Fathers “endeavored to acquire the understanding of the Holy Scriptures not by their own lights and ideas, but from the writings and authority of the ancients, who in their turn, as we know, received the rule of interpretation in direct line from the Apostles.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 14, 1893.

Proof is for mathematics, not for science. Science can provide evidence in favour or a theory and it can provide disproof of a theory. Current scientific theories are those that have not (yet) been disproved and replaced by better theories. Netwon’s theory of gravity was disproved and replaced by Einstein’s theory. A young earth was disproved by geologists in the early 19th century, before Darwin published. The fixity of species was also disproved in the early 19th century by such as Cuvier and Lamarck. Darwin provided a mechanism to explain the already observed mutability of species.

For evidence in favour evolution I suggest that you start by reading On the Origin of Species

if that book contained evidence rossum then the Catholic church would of taken notice a long time ago, no evolutionist has claimed they have evidence, this is where you lose your debate. we are talking about now is the evidence for evolution, of which there isnt, mathematics does not provide proof of the evolution theorie, we were not there at the beginning rossum, nobody saw it, so God gave it to us in a detailed account in his book of Genesis. anyone can put a few numbers together and call it proof for their beleif.
his thoughts are above our thoughts rossum, and his ways are above our ways.

I have corrected your quoting of my sig in bold. If you want to see what my sig is about then I suggest that you read Nargajuna and the Limits of Thought. The quote is right at the end of section four. (St Anastasia, you might also find that article interesting.)

and If you wanna see why your qoute is a load of garbage I suggest you read: John:14:6 ‘‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life’’

but of course in order for you to beleive that you must become Catholic, which you evidently are not.

Well done for acknowledging your mistake. My point about the importance of accuracy in scientific discussion remains. The Lord may well be infallible, that does not mean that all human interpretations are also infallible.

then I might as through out my Bible because its an infallible writing written by the Lord through fallible sinners. my mistake upon getting the dates wrong was not an interpretation but an observation gone wrong.

God bless you Rossum
Stephen

 

[StAnastasia]

Matthew: 16:18-20 in this scriptual text Jesus protects Peter from ever making error on the teaching of faith and morals, is mr.Anastasia gonna contend that this is not true? and that not all doctrinal pronouncments on both faith and morals are infallible?

You don’t understand: the Church does not make doctrinal pronouncements on scientific issues like gravity, evolution, or the shape of the earth.

 

[Luke65]

I’m not sure which church you belong to, but mine has no beef with evolution. Pope Benedict has said that the evolution of all life from a common ancestor is “virtually certain.” That sounds pretty definite to me.

So I see StAnastasia has decided to carry on the Barbarian’s dirty work. You know, StA, bearing false witness against the Vicar of Christ is a very serious sin. And doing so to try to sell the theory of evolution to Catholics is really stupid, not to mention it carries on a long tradition of evo-lies used to deceive the world. Keep it up and see what your end will be.

StA already knows that Pope Benedict didn’t believe that common ancestry was “virtually certain” when that document was published, because I already showed him. But for those who don’t know, here are some of the pope’s personal views on evolution that he has expressed (keep in mind that document with the quote “virtually certain” was published in 2002):

nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm

(2) As a scientific matter, the evidence for “micro-evolution” seems beyond doubt; the case for “macro-evolution” is less persuasive.

While Benedict does not believe it is the church’s role to settle scientific debates, that doesn’t mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls “macro-evolution.” (“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)

Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.

“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: ‘There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”

This distinction between “micro” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” after this experience.

Pope says evolution can’t be proven

In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
…
“I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science,” the pope was quoted as saying in the book…

 

[rossum]

Rossum, i have not taken from their interpretation, I take from the infallible interpretation of the church.
Tradition / Church Fathers
The early Church Fathers were unanimous in their belief that God directly created all things out of nothing (not by an evolutionary process of secondary causes).

The Early Church Fathers were not stupid. They realised perfectly well that God uses secondary causes all the time. Genesis 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; who conceived and brought forth Cain”. Cain was not made directly by God but was made using secondary causes: Adam and Eve. Just as every other human was made using secondary causes (or cause - Mary - in the case of Jesus). The ECF’s knew this. I can see this. Why do you limit God to only using direct causes when it is perfectly within His power to use either direct or indirect causes?

God may well lie at the start of a long chain of indirect causes, but that does not deny the existence of those indirect causes. Jesus was a descendant of Abraham and of David so Abraham and David must have been indirect causes of Jesus.

None of the Fathers’ views ever supported the possibility of an evolutionary process in creation.

None of the Fathers’ views ever supported the possibility of an electronic computer or of the internet. Why are you posting here if all that you can know is what the ECFs knew.

The Fathers also agreed that God created the universe in six literal days. St. Augustine introduced an alternative theory which proposed that God may have created the entire world in an instant (not in six days, and certainly not in millions of years).

Don’t you read what you type? You claim that “The Fathers agreed” and then immediately point out that Saint Augustine disagreed. You have refuted your own statement. Origen disagreed also for that matter.

In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8), one of the Church’s most important councils and to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever, infallibly taught that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” This infallible teaching was restated by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

But since you have just pointed out that the Fathers were not unanimous on the question of the six days being literal 24 hour days then that decree of the Council of Trent does not apply in this instance. Again you are refuting your own case.

For evidence in favour evolution I suggest that you start by reading On the Origin of Species

if that book contained evidence rossum then the Catholic church would of taken notice a long time ago

At least three popes have taken notice of it.

no evolutionist has claimed they have evidence, this is where you lose your debate.

You did not bother to read Darwin, did you. His book is full of evidence, and scientists have gathered a lot more evidence since he published it. You are in the position of someone who says “I know that the Bible is wrong, so I have never bothered to read it”. That is not a very good position to be in. You asked where the evidence was and I told you where to look for it. You have only yourself to blame if you still believe the lie that there is no evidence for evolution.

You can do better than this Stephen; this was not one of your better posts.

rossum

 

[Luke65]

The Early Church Fathers were not stupid. They realised perfectly well that God uses secondary causes all the time.

You should go back and read my quotes from St. Augustine. He said:

“But if we should suppose that God now makes a creature without having implanted its kind (genus) in His original creation, we should flatly contradict Sacred Scripture, which says that on the sixth day God finished all His works. For it is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. But we cannot believe that He establishes a new kind, since He finished all His works on the sixth day.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 5, 41)

And of course there is no proof that this is not true.

Don’t you read what you type? You claim that “The Fathers agreed” and then immediately point out that Saint Augustine disagreed. You have refuted your own statement. Origen disagreed also for that matter.

But since you have just pointed out that the Fathers were not unanimous on the question of the six days being literal 24 hour days then that decree of the Council of Trent does not apply in this instance. Again you are refuting your own case.

The real point here is that the Church Fathers were unanimous that God created the universe in a mature state - Special Creation - just a few thousand years before Christ was born. And the Holy Spirit will lead Christ’s Church to the truth, and so I believe the Church will condemn the whole evolutionary paradigm, especially after reading what our prophets have to say.

 

[StAnastasia]

Boy, if I saw that language in a contract, I would never sign it.

Science is not a contract.

 

[StAnastasia]

So I see StAnastasia has decided to carry on the Barbarian’s dirty work. You know, StA, bearing false witness against the Vicar of Christ is a very serious sin. And doing so to try to sell the theory of evolution to Catholics is really stupid, not to mention it carries on a long tradition of evo-lies used to deceive the world. Keep it up and see what your end will be.

Sin, schmin! Suit yourself; I’ll stick with what the science shows, which the pope and most church leaders accept. I don’t need to “sell” evolution to Catholics – the brightest and most educated ones already accept the evidence in support of evolution, and the less educated ones are in the long run quite irrelevant to this discussion. In half a century we will read about Young Earth Creationism only history books about quaint and marginal twentieth-century cults!

 

[Luke65]

Sin, schmin! Suit yourself; I’ll stick with what the science shows, which the pope and most church leaders accept. I don’t need to “sell” evolution to Catholics – the brightest and most educated ones already accept the evidence in support of evolution, and the less educated ones are in the long run quite irrelevant to this discussion. In half a century we will read about Young Earth Creationism only history books about quaint and marginal twentieth-century cults!

The Church has said that you can believe in the Evolution fairy tale, under certain conditions, without sinning - for the time being. And what the Church has loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven. But Pope Benedict has made his personal views on this subject very clear, and he has chosen his words very carefully, so if I were you I would not go beyond what he has said, or attribute something to him that he didn’t say. As for the rest of your post, you are ever hearing but never understanding…

"At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” (Luke 10:21)

 

[RobbyS]

Sin, schmin! Suit yourself; I’ll stick with what the science shows, which the pope and most church leaders accept. I don’t need to “sell” evolution to Catholics – the brightest and most educated ones already accept the evidence in support of evolution, and the less educated ones are in the long run quite irrelevant to this discussion. In half a century we will read about Young Earth Creationism only history books about quaint and marginal twentieth-century cults!

Speaking of fairy tales, I am reminded of such films as “Star Trek,” which assumes the existence of “life-forms.” on thousands or millions of earth-like planets. Evolution is presumed to work inexorably to produce such results. Of course this requires a universal and uniform set of physical laws everywhere. None of this, of course, is known to us, because it lies wholly outside our experience. Likewise, almost all
events that occured in the earth’s remote past. Back on the 16th Century, Cyrano wrote a play about a balloon flight to the moon. I doubt that we shall every fly to the stars, but if so, it is unlikely that “what” takes us there will be anything more like the
“Enterprise” than the U.S… Enterprise is like a 16th Century balloon. For it would require a physics that incorporates facts as unknown to us today as the facts of atomic physics were to Galileo.

 

[geoformeo]

For the life of me, I am baffled by the number of YEC Catholics there are on this forum. I understand that (Stephenlig, take note) one can be a good Catholic, and believe either view of the age of the Earth and of evolution’s “reality” or not, but I think that those who are intellectually honest with themselves and actually look at the scientific data while using their God-given brain will find the truth in an old Earth and evolution by natural selection.

Stephentlig,

Your heart is in the right place, but your mind is nowhere to be found. I know that you are a recent convert to Catholicism, and it appears your catechesis either was not very good or has not been completed. Of course the Church is infallible in its teachings on faith and morals, but where does it say the Church is infallible on its teachings of history, mathematics, or science? Was the Bible written as a scientific textbook? Of course not. It is a book of faith, first and foremost, and that is its intended use. Are you giving glory to God (which I know is what you want to do, and I commend you for that, but…) by using His words in His book entirely out of context?

Remember that as Catholics we do not believe that all of God’s revelation is contained within Sacred Scripture. Are you to put limits on God and tell Him that He can’t reveal Himself through the workings of nature? Do you forget that we are spiritual souls infused into a physical body, and that there is a dual reality (body and soul) both created by God? Please spend some time in prayer about this.

Luke65,
You also must remove the beam from your own eye before you start casting judgment on others. Is not the Holy Spirit the Lord and giver of life? And does not Christ say that attributing to the devil what is the work of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin? So if God the Holy Spirit really is guiding evolution by natural selection for the creation of new organisms and to promote the diversity of life (as is revealed by modern science), then aren’t you and others like you who denounce evolution as “a fictional theory made up to bring people away from God” coming awful close to committing this sin? Is not bearing false witness against the Holy Spirit more serious of a sin than bearing false witness against the Pope?

Cassini,
Care to elaborate on your answers to my questions regarding geocentrism?

Rossum,
Glad to have you on this thread. I enjoy your comments very much.

God bless all and have a great day!

 

[Luke65]

For the life of me, I am baffled by the number of YEC Catholics there are on this forum.

Of course. (see my last post)

Luke65,
You also must remove the beam from your own eye before you start casting judgment on others. Is not the Holy Spirit the Lord and giver of life? And does not Christ say that attributing to the devil what is the work of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin? So if God the Holy Spirit really is guiding evolution by natural selection for the creation of new organisms and to promote the diversity of life (as is revealed by modern science), then aren’t you and others like you who denounce evolution as “a fictional theory made up to bring people away from God” coming awful close to committing this sin? Is not bearing false witness against the Holy Spirit more serious of a sin than bearing false witness against the Pope?

The Catholic Church says that we can interpret the six day Creation literally, and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, so how could I be “bearing false witness against the Holy Spirit”? Do you really believe that Jesus is going to say to me at my judgment: “You believed My Word with the faith of a little child. That is an unforgivable sin - into the Lake of Fire!”? You evolutionists turn the truth of God upside down…

God: “Without reason it is impossible to please God.” - False!

God: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” - True! (Hebrews 11:6)

God: “For in billions and billions of years the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - False!

God: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - True! (Exodus 20:11)

God: “Let the Creation evolve to perfection.” - False!

God: “The creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” (Romans 8:21) - True!

God: “Let all life come from a single common ancestor.” - False!

God: “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” True! (Genesis 1:24)

God: “Let there be millions and millions of years of death and suffering before I create man.” - False!

God: “God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being” - True! (Wisdom 1:13)

God: “Let man evolve from apes.” - False!

God: “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.” - True! (2 Maccabees 7:28)

God: “I will keep my people in the dark about they got here for thousands of years, then in the end times I will shine My light upon atheists.” - False!

God: “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of Heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” - True! (Matthew 13:11)

“Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

 

[Stephentlig]

What did the Fathers teach regarding creation?
Irenaeus, (140-202): "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded… in six days created things were completed…” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): “From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days” (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): “…but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world…” (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).

Hippolytus (160-235): “But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,’ but of ‘one day,’ in order that by saying ‘one,’ he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week…On the first day God made what He made out of nothing.” (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).

Hippolytus (160-235): "When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth’…Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, defies himself.” Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).

Theophilus (c. 185): “Of this six days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts…on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated” (Autolycus 2,12).

Theophilus (c. 185): “God…made the existent out of the non-existent.” (Autolycus 2,4).

Theophilus (c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.” Theophilus, 2.15.

Theophilus (c. 185): “…the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth…The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.” Theophilus, 3.25, 28.

Theophilus (c. 185): “If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 and 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands or years as it was for Plato…and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.” Theophilus, 3.29.

Origen (c. 200): “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19.

Lactantius (250-317): “God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day…For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up…Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years…For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.” …And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years… (Institutes 7,14).

Victorinus (c. 280): “God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World).

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): “‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic.” (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

 

[Stephentlig]

Methodius (c. 311): “For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church.” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): “In six days God made the world…The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment…The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands” (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).

Epiphanius (315-403): “Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name.” (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).

Basil (329-379): “’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’ He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night…, since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” (Hexameron 2, 8).

Basil (329-379): “Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8). Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s interpretation of Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary (PG 18, 705-707).

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): “Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text’s objective. With God’s help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass.” (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).

Ambrose (340-397): “But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.” (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).

Ambrose (340-397): “In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning.” (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).

Ambrose (340-397): “But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded.” (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).

Chrysostom (344-407): “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’…so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Victorinus (c. 355-361): "The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men’s labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. “On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night… (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343).”

Augustine (354-430): “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been…And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and…thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.” Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.

Top

 

[rossum]

God: “For in billions and billions of years the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - False!

God: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” - True! (Exodus 20:11)

God: “But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” - True! (2 Peter 3:8). The word “day” does not always mean “24 hours”.

God: “Let all life come from a single common ancestor.” - False!

God: “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” True! (Genesis 1:24)

Since “land” is singular, all living creatured are descended from a single common ancestor, as evolution shows. Since “land” is not alive, life developed from non-life, as abiogenesis is in the process of showing. Hence both evolution and abiogenesis are true in those respects.

The Bible can be interpreted in different ways. There are allowed interpretations that differ from your interpretation.

God: “God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being” - True! (Wisdom 1:13)

God: “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7) [emphasis added].

rossum

 

[Stephentlig]

Don’t you read what you type? You claim that “The Fathers agreed” and then immediately point out that Saint Augustine disagreed. You have refuted your own statement. Origen disagreed also for that matter.

and your not reading what I said, St.Augustine proposed a theory thatGod MAY have created the world in an instant, but that he was still unanimous on the six day creation.
St.augustine knew his theory was just a theory and not part of the actual inteperpretation, he proposed it , but it was not even accepted by himself.

so, about the laptop, I have already adressed that in my previous posts and I am not gonna do it again.

The Lap top is Jesus in his omnipotence go back and read what I posted.
the early church fathers agreed on his omnipotency therefore I need not say any more

But since you have just pointed out that the Fathers were not unanimous on the question of the six days being literal 24 hour days then that decree of the Council of Trent does not apply in this instance. Again you are refuting your own case.

tutut I wrote no such thing

At least three popes have taken notice of it.

but not accepted it as my other forum buddies have so well pointed out.

You did not bother to read Darwin, did you. His book is full of evidence, and scientists have gathered a lot more evidence since he published it. You are in the position of someone who says “I know that the Bible is wrong, so I have never bothered to read it”. That is not a very good position to be in. You asked where the evidence was and I told you where to look for it. You have only yourself to blame if you still believe the lie that there is no evidence for evolution.

You can do better than this Stephen; this was not one of your better posts.

rossum

very clever Rossum, I say your playing the clever card, making the public think that there is evidence to support their theory of evolution, if that was so, then it was be all over the media by now. mans explanation of how to world was created is not Gods explanation, their explanation is of the world and is human.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

with this wonderful qoute from the Bible how could I possibly be wrong?

God bless you Rossum.

 

[Stephentlig]

( 2 Peter:3:16 ) this shows how people like Rossum interpret the scriptures to their own destruction.

( 2Peter: 3:8)Ver. 10. The heavens, &c. He puts the faithful in mind not to regard these profane scoffers, but to be convinced of the truths revealed, and that the world shall be destroyed a second time by fire. Reflect that the time of this life, and all the time that this world shall last, is nothing to eternity, which has no parts, no beginning, nor end; so that in the sight of God, who is eternal, a thousand years are no more to be regarded than one day, or one moment. The long time that hath hitherto passed, must not make you think that God is slack as to his promises, or that they shall not infallibly come to pass at the time and moment appointed by his divine providence. God’s infinite mercy, and his love for mankind, bears patiently with the provocations of blind and unthinking sinners, not willing that any of them should perish, but that they should return to him by a sincere repentance and true penance, and be saved. But watch always, according to the repeated admonition of our blessed Redeemer. (Mark xiii. 37. &c.) For both the day of your death, and the day of the Lord to judge the world, will come like a thief, &c. (Witham)

God: “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7) [emphasis added].

Isaiah:Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.

Evil is quite different from death. if you read on you would of read ‘‘he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living’’ but as we already learned from the same passage ‘‘death was not Gods doing’’ that was our doing.

The Bible can be interpreted in different ways. There are allowed interpretations that differ from your interpretation.

by whose authority?

people can interpret the Bible as long as their interpretation does not differ from the ECF’s infallbile interpretation, which indeed is Gods interpreation. ( 2Peter:1:21: ) ‘‘Why? because no prohecy ever came from mans initiative. When men spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.’’

and since your not catholic I dont know what spirit it is that flys around you but seeing as you didnt interpret the Bible properly it aint from God thats for sure.

God bless and take care Rossum.

Stephen. <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Stephentlig,

Your heart is in the right place, but your mind is nowhere to be found. I know that you are a recent convert to Catholicism, and it appears your catechesis either was not very good or has not been completed. Of course the Church is infallible in its teachings on faith and morals, but where does it say the Church is infallible on its teachings of history, mathematics, or science? Was the Bible written as a scientific textbook? Of course not. It is a book of faith, first and foremost, and that is its intended use. Are you giving glory to God (which I know is what you want to do, and I commend you for that, but…) by using His words in His book entirely out of context?

Remember that as Catholics we do not believe that all of God’s revelation is contained within Sacred Scripture. Are you to put limits on God and tell Him that He can’t reveal Himself through the workings of nature? Do you forget that we are spiritual souls infused into a physical body, and that there is a dual reality (body and soul) both created by God? Please spend some time in prayer about this.

its infallible on the teachings of Christ, the teachings of the world dont matter, as saint Paul said ‘‘Avoid anything in your everyday lives that would be unworthy of the gospel.’’

as far as creation goes the church is infallible on the history of how creation began with the detailed account of it in Genesis.

The Church fathers infallible interpretation doesnt take it out of context, and as you can see, this is what I go by.

III. CHRIST JESUS – "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"25

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

IN BRIEF

68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.

69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.

70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

 

[Stephentlig]

CCCara:42 ‘‘God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in that it is limited, image bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God----’‘The inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the un-graspable’---- with our human human representationsn. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.’’

Isaiah:55:8-9 ‘‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways—it is Yahweh who speaks. Yes, the heavens are as high above the earth as my ways are above your ways, my thoughts above your thoughts.’’

‘‘It is Truth that must be sought in Holy Scripture, not beauty of expression. It should be read with the same spirit it was written.’’ Thomas a kempis Imitations of Christ, book 1 para 1. 14th ct.

that spirit is was written with was simplicity.

and the theory of evolution falls short of the mystery of God, as it is mans fictional and erroneous thoughts on how things came to be, not Gods. It is a theory and teaching that came from outside the church, which goes beyond what we ( as Christians ) were taught from within the church, and St.John told us that if anyone who went beyond the teachings of Christ cannot have The father and the son with him.

 

[rossum]

but not accepted it as my other forum buddies have so well pointed out.

You have a habit of moving the goalposts with some of my responses to you. This is just one example of that habit. You originally said: “if that book contained evidence rossum then the Catholic church would of taken notice a long time ago” (post #141) You said “taken notice”, not “accepted”.

In post #144 I responded: “At least three popes have taken notice of it.” where I was refuting your claim that the Church had not “taken notice” of if. Up to this point neither of us have said anything about “accepting”, just “taken notice”.

Now, all of a sudden you are avoiding the fact that I have refuted your original claim on “taken notice” and shifted the goalposts to “accepted”. I have refuted your original claim, so in politeness you should acknowledge that your initial claim in post #141 has been shown to be incorrect.

Moving the goalposts is not a good way to argue and puts you in a bad light. I suggest that you stick to the same points in future, rather than jumping about all over the place. Yes, this does mean that you have to think about the points that you make here more carefully because you will have to defend them rather than jump to a different point whenever you feel like it. This is a written discussion, so all that you have written previously is available for comparison. You need to bear that in mind.

very clever Rossum, I say your playing the clever card, making the public think that there is evidence to support their theory of evolution,

I make the public think nothing, I merely told you and anyboby else reading that if they wanted to see some of the evidence for evolution then they could see it in Darwin’s Origin. The evidence is there if you want to see it. Your creationist sources are lying to you when they tell you that there is no evidence. You can test the truth for yourself by looking for yourself.

if that was so, then it was be all over the media by now.

Erm…, you picked the wrong week to say that. How about Darwinus masillae?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

with this wonderful qoute from the Bible how could I possibly be wrong?

Since you are not God then the quote shows that it is perfectly possible for you to be wrong. Every Protestant, every Catholic and every Eastern Orthodox I have ever met are all convinced that they are correctly following what the Bible says. They cannot all be right. They are human and they are capable of misinterpreting the Bible. You are human and you are also capable of minsinterpreting the Bible.

rossum

 

[rossum]

( 2 Peter:3:16 ) this shows how people like Rossum interpret the scriptures to their own destruction.

Luke65 gave one interpretation of scriptures, I gave another - which is not unique to me. How do I know that it is my interpretation which leads to my own destruction and not Luke65’s interpretation which leads to his destruction. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

Summa
By insisting on a 6,000 year old earth you are exposing Christianity to ridicule from anybody with even a little scientific training and placing an obstacle to anybody with such a training becoming a Christian. I like my brain very much, and I do not want to have to leave it as the door of the church every Sunday.

If anything it is Luke65’s interpretation of scripture that will drive people away from Christianity and so to their destruction.

Isaiah:Ver. 7. Create evil, &c. The evils of afflictions and punishments, but not the evil of sin. (Challoner) — I afflict and comfort my people.

I have looked through my copy of the Bible and I cannot find the Book of Challoner. Could it be perhaps that Challoner is a human and so his writings and interpretations are subject to error?

If evil exists, and God made everything that exists then logically God must have made evil. Are you asserting that evil does not exist? Are you asserting that God did not make everything that exists? Is there a fault in my logic?

by whose authority?

By the Pope’s authority. Evolution is acceptable for Catholics, though it is not compulsory.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
and
Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
Both taken from the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996): Truth Cannot Contradict Truth.

rossum