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

[Stephentlig]

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

Erm, show me where the article says they’ve proven it to be a direct ancestor?

But he added: “I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans.”

nothing in the article states that it indeed is true. I’ve already given you the chronology of the age of the earth, right out of the Bible, the earth is not 47million years old.

they did the same with our Lords shroud, they handed it over to cain and cain put it in his Machine, but the machines of cain are nothing to the wisdom of God, as they got the dates of the shroud wrong. man made built things outside of the church are fallible, but Gods wisdom and thoughts are higher than this and he remains infallible

“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”.

when I said ‘taken notice’ I was alluding to the church ‘acceptence’ part of it, not just simply taken notice of it, we all know they’ve taken notice of it to some level, but not accepted it. it was bad articulation on my behalf so my apologies.

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.

Its clever because it annuls the conversation, it leaves both parties neither right nor wrong, because they all gotta go read a book. but you see the church has not accepted any evidence yet, so it is not evidence, and until the church accepts it, it remains a charles dickens fairly tale.

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.

Show me where my qoute/interpretation derails from that of the infallible interpretation of the church? because the infallible interpretation of the church is what we adhere to. this is why catholics are one and the protestents are 30,000

the Lord couldnt make himself any more clear than with this qoute provided Rossum and you just cannot take that. the qoute cannot be interpretated any other way than the obvious sense that it was written in.

Isaiah:55Ver. 8. My ways. I am not vindictive, but require a sincere conversion. (Calmet) — We cannot serve both God and the world. We must therefore adhere to the former. (Worthington)

as for the rest of you out there reading this topic who are on the Lords side, The Lord speaks to us today with his holy word as todays daily mass reading he says.

Acts:18:9 ‘Be fearless; speak out and do not keep silence:’

 

[Stephentlig]

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.

And as we already know, the ECF’s did not waver, and thomas a aquinas acknowledged the ECF’s infallible intepration as indeed infallible. thus anyone who wavers from infallible church interpretation is wrong as I have qouted them earliar.
The angels had free will they chose that dark and murky place themselves. God did not create evil, evil created itself.

'‘The Devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.’ CCC 391

CCC 392 ‘‘Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This ‘‘fall’’ consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign’’’

you see your interpretation that God created Evil is inconsistent with church teaching.
therefore when he said ‘I create Evil’’ challoners interpretation must be accepted, as truth cannot contradict truth.

'‘I beleive in God the father the almighty, creator of heaven and earth’

By the Pope’s authority. Evolution is acceptable for Catholics, though it is not compulsory.

thats got nothing to do with my question. by whose authority to you interpret the Bible?

I’d like a response please. looks like someone here is changing the goalposts and trying to weave their way out of my little question.

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.

with the scriptural qoutes provided it is evident that the earth is as old as it is.

God gave you free will to choose good or Evil, you choose evil if you listen to the theory of evolution. you choose Good when you accept the simple account in Genesis on how God created the world as given to you by God himself.

God bless
Stephen

 

[Stephentlig]

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?

Your theory bears false witness against the Holy Spirit as it has been created outside the mind of the church. The material is God, the theory cannot be from God as it came from outside the mind of the church.

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.’’

 

[Stephentlig]

First, the creation account concerns the faith for a number of reasons. Here are ten:

1. It is where we get the doctrine of Original Sin.
2. It is where we get the doctrine of Marriage.
3. It is where we get the Protoevangelium.
4. It is where we get the doctrine of ex nihilo creation.
5. The NT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 4:4).
6. The OT teachings on the faith appeal to the creation account as true history (Ex 20:11).
7. The Fathers and the medievals considered it a matter of the faith.
8. The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, endorsed by Pius X, considered it a matter of the faith.
9. Popes Pelagius I, Leo XIII and Pius XII considered it a matter of faith; as did Lateran IV, Cologne and Vatican I.
10. The Church defines faith as an assent of the intellect to the truths revealed by God. Since the creation account is one of the truths revealed by God, it is a matter of faith.

Second, the Church teaches us that we must interpret the Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense, unless the interpretation is unreasonable or necessity requires otherwise (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893; Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950; the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116). Because science has not (and cannot) disproved a six-day creation and evolutionary theory, we must interpret the Scriptures literally. That means a six-day, ex nihilo creation.

Third, the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a six-day creation period, and many of the quotes you provided prove my case. Only Augustine offered an alternative theory: that God created everything instantly, and fashioned it over six days so that the angels could comprehend His work. This is the antithesis of the evolutionary theory. Moreover, Augustine also viewed a six-day creation period as a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures. In fact, it was from Augustine that the Church derived her literal approach to the Scriptures. The only Father that deviated from a six-day creation account was Origen, but he allegorized almost everything and so is an irrelevant exception to the rule.

Fourth, two infallible councils eliminate evolution as a legitimate theory of creation. Lateran Council IV stated that “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).

Unlike what you have argued, ex nihilo means “from nothing,” not “from God alone.” That God used dust to create Adam does not contradict ex nihilo creation, for human cells do not come from mud. That means Adam was created out of nothing, and God’s use of dust wasn’t necessary. In fact, God’s use of dust has a theological, yes “Faith” element to it, for it prefigured man’s destiny while in sin - that we return to the dust from whence Adam came.

In 1870, Vatican Council I issued an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation.

In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing). Pope Leo XIII affirmed the same in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae. John Paul II has never (and could never) contradict this infallible teaching. Statements from the Pontifical Academy of Science (made up primarily of non-Catholic agnostics) have absolutely no authority.

Therefore, you are back to square one - explaining why we are not bound by the mandate of two infallible councils that we must interpret the creation account according to the unanimity of the Fathers, when they concern faith or morals.

MayGod give you His wisdom to hear the Faith of the Fathers, not the enemies of God and His Church.

John Salza scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#evofm

 

[rossum]

Erm, show me where the article says they’ve proven it to be a direct ancestor?

Would you please stop moving the goalposts. You said that there was no evidence to support evolution and that if there was it would be “all over the media by now”. We were talking about evidence for evolution. Darwinus masillae is indeed evidence for evolution and it is present in the media. You have been lied to by creationist websites who told you that there was no evidence to support evolution. They were lying when they said that, and D. masillae is just one example of just how wrong they are.

Whether or not it is a direct ancestor of humans is of no relevance to the fact that it is excellent evidence for evolution. Do you acknowledge that evidence for evolution does exist?

the earth is not 47million years old.

We can agree on that, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

they did the same with our Lords shroud

How do you know that the piece of cloth in Turin is the actual shroud and not a fake shroud? There are already known fake relics. IIRC there are at least two claimed Crowns of Thorns, three claimed Holy Lances and about five claimed Holy Prepuces. By their nature only one of each, at most, can be the real relic. Not all claimed relics are what they are said to be.

when I said ‘taken notice’ I was alluding to the church ‘acceptence’ part of it, not just simply taken notice of it, we all know they’ve taken notice of it to some level, but not accepted it. it was bad articulation on my behalf so my apologies.

Apologies accepted. Thank you.

Show me where my qoute/interpretation derails from that of the infallible interpretation of the church?

The quote shows that God is much higher than mere humans. Since you are human it is possible for you to be wrong, unlike God. However you said “with this wonderful qoute sic] from the Bible how could I possibly be wrong?” I do not think that the Catholic Church says that every human interpretation of the Bible is correct - hence my point about Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. You cannot use this quote to say that you personally are incapable of error.

rossum

 

[rossum]

And as we already know, the ECF’s did not waver

Except that Saint Augustine allowed a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and Origen said:What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?
Genesis is a case where “Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses”.

God did not create evil, evil created itself.

This is philosophically incoherent. If evil did not exist then how could it create itself? If evil already existed then it had no need to create itself and is eternal - co-eternal with God which would seem to be a Zoroastrian interpretation rather than a Christian one. In any case you are denying that God made everything which I do not think is the standard Christian position. The problem of theodicy is extremely difficult, and it is unlikely that we will resolve it here. You need to be aware that it is a longstanding problem, which does not have a simple solution.

thats got nothing to do with my question. by whose authority to you interpret the Bible?

I was quoting what Pope John Paul II said. I gave his interpretation of the relationship between the Bible and evolution, expanding on Pius XII’s previous interpretation. The interpretation was not mine but came from the Pope so the authority behind the interpretation is that of the Pope, albeit not his ex cathedra authority.

I’d like a response please. looks like someone here is changing the goalposts and trying to weave their way out of my little question.

This strand of our conversation started back in my post #154, in which I said: “The Bible can be interpreted in different ways. There are allowed interpretations that differ from your [Luke65’s] interpretation.” That post was in response to Luke65’s post #151.

To this you responded in post #156 with “by whose authority?”

My response, in post #160, was to quote Pope John Paul II to the effect that evolution was not completely against Catholic teaching. Since both yourself and Luke65 seem to be aserting that evolution is completely against Catholic teaching I have established my point that there are indeed different interpretations of the Bible in this question and I have further established that at least one of the interpretations has the authority of two Popes behind it.

What part of your question have I failed to answer? Different interpretations do exist. The authority of two Popes underlies one of the interpretations.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

Quite right.

 

[Stephentlig]

Except that Saint Augustine allowed a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and Origen said:
What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky?
Genesis is a case where “Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses”.

refuted in last post, if read throughly.

This is philosophically incoherent. If evil did not exist then how could it create itself? If evil already existed then it had no need to create itself and is eternal - co-eternal with God which would seem to be a Zoroastrian interpretation rather than a Christian one. In any case you are denying that God made everything which I do not think is the standard Christian position. The problem of theodicy is extremely difficult, and it is unlikely that we will resolve it here. You need to be aware that it is a longstanding problem, which does not have a simple solution.

God is not a philosopher so of course its incoherent to you and all of of us.
God is Theology and spiritality.

I was quoting what Pope John Paul II said. I gave his interpretation of the relationship between the Bible and evolution, expanding on Pius XII’s previous interpretation. The interpretation was not mine but came from the Pope so the authority behind the interpretation is that of the Pope, albeit not his ex cathedra authority.

The Popes interpretation, should it differ from the fathers interpretation, would be a fallible interpretation. show me where his interpretation does not contradict the infallible ECF’s interpretation?

What part of your question have I failed to answer? Different interpretations do exist. The authority of two Popes underlies one of the interpretations.

interpreation does not come from the authority of the Pope, it comes from the Holy Spirit, this is why not all thoughts of the Pope are infallible, but if his interpretation did not waver from the infallible ECF’s then his interpretation would be correct, and indeed an inspired one, but it still doesnt mean it cannot be challenged. you have yet to prove to me that he did not waver from the infallible interpretation of the church fathers.

no interpretation ever came from man, but the Holy Spirit and St.Peter teaches us this in his letters.

Darwinus masillae is indeed evidence for evolution and it is present in the media.

Then show me where it said that its evidence? because the article quite clearly doesnt, this is you forcing yourself to beleive that you are indeed Peter Pan and can fly, but whatever you do dont jump out that window just yet.
you have been deceived by the wise insidious speeches of the world, and you are indeed lost. your life here is only momentary, why waste it on fictional fables such as evolution?
‘‘They will eagerly try to buy you for themselves with insidious speeches,’’ ( 2Peter:2:3)

now I am not finished yet, I have yet to reply to your other post, but until I do I kindly request that you dont reply just yet, as I have to do it in a new post.

Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

We can agree on that, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

inconsistent with church teaching, and Bible Chronology so nope, the Church doesnt agree with you on that one.
Jesus Christ told me the shroud is real by means of a mystic. its also called faith, so as soon as you can prove to me it isnt real I’ll take notice, but then again how can I beleive in a man made machine that all ready got it wrong?

again it was wrong of me to say ‘‘I’’ rather than the Lord. so Yes his word is right, there is no need to interpret the obvious, that cannot be interpretated as anything else.It was never my wish to imply that I could be without error

Now, we have been warned in the Bible about the last days, and the difficult times there in.
we have not understood the importance of the apparations of Fatima, Garabandal and Medugorje.
I want you to follow me here scripturally and in order, then when you have thought about how the church and the world reject these apparitions I want you to return to Isaiah:30 at the beginning. I need to show you the folliness that is evolution and the confusion of these days but again just like your ancestors before you, you will probably not listen. the church has taken years to recognise the first two and has not yet recognised the third. the last days began on 1917 after the apparition of our Lady at Fatima, who spoke to us of the dangers to come.

Isaiah:30:9-10 This is a rebellious people, they are lying sons, sons who will not listen to yahwehs orders. To the seers they say ‘see no visions’; to the prophets, 'do not prophesy the truth to us, ‘tell us flattering things; turn aside from they way, leave the path, take the holy one out of our sight’.

Joel:3:1-3 ‘‘THE NEW AGE AND THE DAY OF YAHWEH’’
'After this I will pour out my spirit on all mankind.
Your sons and daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men see visions [note]( fatima garabandal Medugorje )

Acts:2:17 -18 ‘‘In the days to come ----It is the Lord who speaks---- I will pour out my spirit on all mankind. Their sons and daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men dream dreams.’’

1Tim:4:1-2 ‘‘The Spirit has explicity said that during the last times there will be some who will desert the faith and choose to listen to decietful spirits and doctrines that come from the devils; and the cause of this is the lies told by hypocrites whose consciences are branded as though with a red hot iron.’’ read rest of this passage which explains Jehovahs]

2Tim:3:1-5 ‘‘The dangers of the last days’’ You may be quite sure that in the last days there are going to be some difficult times. People will be self-centred and grasping; boastful, arrogant and rude; disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious; heartless and unappeasable; they will be slanderers, profligates, savages and enemies of everything that is good; they will be treacherous and reckless and demented by pride, preferring their own pleasure to God. They will keep up the outward appearence of religion but will have rejected the inner power of it. Have nothing to do with People like that.
1John:1-18 ''Children, these are the last days; you were told that the antichrist would come, and now several antichrists have already appeared; we know from this that these are the last days. Those rivals of Christ came out of our own number but they had never really belonged. 1John:22: The man who denies that Jesus is the Christ—he is the liar he is antichrist, and he is denying the Father as well as the Son [freemasons] check out John Salzas website for more info on how freemasons do this practice as he used to be one.

Jude:18-19 ‘At the end of time,’ they told you ‘there are gonna be people who sneer at religion and follow nothing but their own desires for wickedness.’ These unspiritual and selfish people are nothing but mischief makers.’’

All of this was revealed by Jesus to a mystic.
we do not realise the importance of these times and also the danger that our souls are in.
I pray that you all come home and learn to live a True Life In God.
This post thus ends our correspondance.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
Mark:6:10-11Wheresoever you shall enter into an house, there abide till you depart from that place. ‘‘And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.’’’

Stephen<3

 

[StAnastasia]

inconsistent with church teaching, and Bible Chronology so nope, the Church doesnt agree with you on that one.

The Church’s theological opinion on the age of the earth is utterly irrelevant to scientists, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

 

[cassini]

This thread of mine seems to have ground to a halt. Rather than let it drift into history let me say now that it was/is one of the best debates on the subject I have read. For both sides there is a treasure of exchange and I wish to thank all for their contributions. I look forward to the day when we all squeeze into heaven (please, please God) and He reveals the truth to us. Who will be uttering ‘I told you so’? No I shall not open a new thread on that question.

God bless all.

 

[StAnastasia]

This thread of mine seems to have ground to a halt. Rather than let it drift into history let me say now that it was/is one of the best debates on the subject I have read. For both sides there is a treasure of exchange and I wish to thank all for their contributions. I look forward to the day when we all squeeze into heaven (please, please God) and He reveals the truth to us. Who will be uttering ‘I told you so’? No I shall not open a new thread on that question.God bless all.

Cassini, you’re right that a thread now on “I told you so” would be premature. If Catholic Answers exists eschatologically – and I don’t know whether that would be via the Internet – we can carry on that discussion.

StAnastasia

 

[rossum]

refuted in last post, if read throughly.

The ECFs were not unanimoue, or do you consider that Saint Augustine was not an ECF?

God is not a philosopher so of course its incoherent to you and all of of us.

It was not God’s philosophy that I was criticising, but yours. God said that He created evil. You said that evil created evil. It is your position that is philosophically incoherent.

The Popes interpretation, should it differ from the fathers interpretation, would be a fallible interpretation. show me where his interpretation does not contradict the infallible ECF’s interpretation?

Again with the moving goalposts. You asked about the authority behind an interpretation of the Bible and I gave you the authority I was using. If you disagree with the authority of the Pope then it is up to you to resolve it with the Pope.

no interpretation ever came from man, but the Holy Spirit and St.Peter teaches us this in his letters.

Utter rubbish! Did Luther’s interpretation come from man or from the Holy Spirit? Did Calvin’s interpretation come from man or from the Holy Spirit? You really need to think more carefully before you post.

Then show me where it said that its evidence?

Have you read the evidence in Darwin yet? What is the point of giving you yet another link to evidence if you do not look at what I provide? It is not polite of you to ask for stuff and then to ignore it. The original article for Darwinius masillae can be found here: Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. That is what real science look like, not what you read in the media. The “evidence” is the whole article but it is summarised in the last major section: Discussion.

inconsistent with church teaching, and Bible Chronology so nope, the Church doesnt agree with you on that one.

The age of the earth is not a matter of faith or morals so the Church has no authority in this case. The ECF’s are not a reliable source for scientific knowledge. For example Saint Augustine did not think that any people lived on the other side of the world at the antipodes, see De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9.

Jesus Christ told me the shroud is real by means of a mystic.

The Church has a set procedure for dealing with private revelations. Not all private revalations are accepted by the Church as being correct. Unless that private revelation has been so accepted then it is not part of Church doctrine and has no authority for anyone other than the recipient. I would need to see real evidence in order to accept what you are saying; and so far the available evidence is that the Turin Shroud is a medieval forgery.

again it was wrong of me to say ‘‘I’’ rather than the Lord. so Yes his word is right, there is no need to interpret the obvious, that cannot be interpretated as anything else.It was never my wish to imply that I could be without error

Thank you for the clarification.

Now, we have been warned in the Bible about the last days

As a Buddhist I know that the current phase of the universe will not come to an end until firstly the Buddhist religion has entirely disappeared from earth and secondly the Maitreya Buddha has appeared and re-established it on earth. Since the first of these has not yet happened I think that there is a very long time to wait yet. I would also remind you of the Great Disappointment when other Christians thought that they were living in the last days and found that they were not. Every prophecy of the end of the world we have been able to test so far has failed. Every single one. Better not to add yourself to the long list of failed prophets.

I want you to follow me here scripturally

We are unlikely to be able to agree on scripture. If you look at the top of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist so we do not agree on what is and what is not scripture. You use the Bible while I use the Tripitaka.

I have quoted the Bible and the ECFs because they are authorities that you accept. They are not authorities that I accept unless what they say is in conformance with the equivalent Buddhist sources:“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91
is something we can agree on because it is in both Christian and Buddhist scriptures. For much of the rest we will be in disagreement, as with the timing of the end of the universe.

rossum

 

[geoformeo]

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!”?

I certainly hope not. But you misinterpreted my post. I said that those who denounce evolution as something that leads people away from God would be subject to that false witness, not simply if you rather believed in God’s special creation 6,000 years ago. The Pharisees would have been okay, had they not speculated that Jesus’ exorcisms were the works of the devil. Instead, they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. I (nor any other theistic evolutionist who has been posting on this thread) have not claimed that believing the literal creation account is leading people away from God (as the work of the devil), although many of you YECers have spoken in that kind of language with regard to theistic evolution.

We believe (not contrarily to the Church) that God made and is guiding evolution through the Holy Spirit, and that this is the fullness of truth. As a Catholic, I do not believe that Protestants are incapable of attaining heaven, though they are not within the fullness of truth that comes with the Roman Catholic Church. As Catholics, we believe in faith and works, not faith or works. In the same sense, the Church believes in faith and reason, not faith or reason. When it comes to scientific matters such as evolution and the age of the Earth, God as the Great Scientist has revealed Himself to us, and this physical truth does not and cannot contradict the moral/spiritual truth conveyed to us through Sacred Scripture. We are called to have the faith of a child, with the wisdom of an adult.

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

God: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26)
“God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

And just what does it mean to be in God’s likeness, if not to have consciousness, free will, and the ability to reason? If our ability to reason is “good” in God’s eyes, wouldn’t our willful choosing not to reason (similar to our willful choosing not to act in accordance to God’s commandments) be displeasing to the Lord?

Remember the parable of the talents, where Jesus explains to us (in, coincidentally, a figurative sense) that those who do not use their “talents” will be classified as a “useless servant” and cast “into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” (Matthew 25:14-30) Ask yourself honestly, if you are not using your talent of reason, are you pleasing God?

The rest of your hypotheticals unfortunately go downhill rather fast, and are not even worth responding to. The important thing for you and those who share your similar philosophical position on these matters to understand is that you are not drawing others to Christ when you portray Him and His Church’s teachings in an unreasonable light. For myself, other scientists, and most educated individuals the world over (including our Holy Father), complete biblical literalism is unreasonable and does nothing to encourage or draw others to the truth that is God or His Word.

I don’t care if you want to challenge myself or other Christians with this position, but please, for the love of God, do not try to bring others to Christ through the literal creation story and anti-evolution antics. If you do, I’m afraid you will only push them further away. Use faith, use hope, use love; use the gentle mastery of Christ to evangelize. But do not, I beg of you, use Young-Earth Creationism.

God bless you, and all others on this forum.

 

[Luke65]

I certainly hope not. But you misinterpreted my post. I said that those who denounce evolution as something that leads people away from God would be subject to that false witness, not simply if you rather believed in God’s special creation 6,000 years ago. The Pharisees would have been okay, had they not speculated that Jesus’ exorcisms were the works of the devil. Instead, they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit.

True, but again, your conclusion is backwards. The Pharisees were condemned for not believing, not for believing. So its a very strange argument for you to make that we could be in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit simply for believing and defending what God has told us through His Church.

I (nor any other theistic evolutionist who has been posting on this thread) have not claimed that believing the literal creation account is leading people away from God (as the work of the devil), although many of you YECers have spoken in that kind of language with regard to theistic evolution.

Its an empirical fact that millions of Christians have apostatized, and I would bet that virtually every one of them would tell you that they believe in Evolution, and not the Creation account in the Bible, which Moses wrote. And Jesus foretold this: If you don’t believe what Moses wrote how can you believe what Jesus says? Its all the Word of God. Moreover, I’m sure you’ll find that all of the modernist heretics are evolutionists too.

“A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:18)

What more do you need to know?

As Catholics, we believe in faith and works, not faith or works. In the same sense, the Church believes in faith and reason, not faith or reason.

As Catholics we believe - de fide - that “faith is above reason”. They are not equals. And there’s a good reason for that. If we relied on natural human reason we wouldn’t believe much of what’s in the Bible - who could? It is only by the light of divine faith that we can believe the Word of God - according to His plan.

When it comes to scientific matters such as evolution and the age of the Earth, God as the Great Scientist has revealed Himself to us, and this physical truth does not and cannot contradict the moral/spiritual truth conveyed to us through Sacred Scripture. We are called to have the faith of a child, with the wisdom of an adult.

God already revealed Himself regarding the age of the earth, and how life came into existence - Special Creation, a few thousand years before Christ was born. The Church has taught this for 2000 years. Why? Obviously because it is integral to the Gospel - as Jesus, the Second Adam, said (see my signature!).

“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

My fellow Catholics, don’t put up with it! Jesus was not descended from apes! That’s a different Jesus! A different Gospel! He was descended from “Adam, the son of God”. (Luke 3:38)

“How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods? Selah” (Psalm 4:2)

 

[Luke65]

And just what does it mean to be in God’s likeness, if not to have consciousness, free will, and the ability to reason? If our ability to reason is “good” in God’s eyes, wouldn’t our willful choosing not to reason (similar to our willful choosing not to act in accordance to God’s commandments) be displeasing to the Lord?

Of course. But your question implies that if you don’t believe in the theory of evolution then you are “willfully choosing not to reason”. But what you can’t seem to comprehend is that the most reasonable thing to believe is the Word of God. He is the only One who was there. And He is omniscient to boot! And, by the way, He is the actual Creator! How about we let Him tell us how we got here, or rather, just believe what He has already told us? If you have anything to add that is in accordance with His Word, I’m all ears. That’s what I’ve been doing for the better part of 4 years - learning all about God, His Creation, His purpose, and His plan - and His secrets!

The rest of your hypotheticals unfortunately go downhill rather fast, and are not even worth responding to.

Of course, because the evolutionary paradigm contradicts the Word of God in just about every way it can, so of course you don’t want to talk about it.

The important thing for you and those who share your similar philosophical position on these matters to understand is that you are not drawing others to Christ when you portray Him and His Church’s teachings in an unreasonable light. For myself, other scientists, and most educated individuals the world over (including our Holy Father), complete biblical literalism is unreasonable and does nothing to encourage or draw others to the truth that is God or His Word.

Who says we believe in “complete biblical literalism”? We believe the Catholic tradition that has been handed down to us, and we’re not giving it up for nothing! Thank you, Jesus!

I don’t care if you want to challenge myself or other Christians with this position, but please, for the love of God, do not try to bring others to Christ through the literal creation story and anti-evolution antics. If you do, I’m afraid you will only push them further away. Use faith, use hope, use love; use the gentle mastery of Christ to evangelize. But do not, I beg of you, use Young-Earth Creationism.

Well, its ironic that you should say that to me. Because it was young earth creationism that brought me back to the Catholic Church after more than 20 years as a lost sheep (see here). So, how about you let God do His work, me do my work, and you do your work?

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:4)

Thank you, Jesus! I’ve always got an answer for the hope that I have in You.

God bless you, and all others on this forum.

And God bless you, and let me know if you want in on any of the secrets of the Kingdom.

 

[Stephentlig]

The ECFs were not unanimoue, or do you consider that Saint Augustine was not an ECF?

“Third, the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a six-day creation period, and many of the quotes you provided prove my case. Only Augustine offered an alternative theory: that God created everything instantly, and fashioned it over six days so that the angels could comprehend His work. This is the antithesis of the evolutionary theory. Moreover, Augustine also viewed a six-day creation period as a legitimate interpretation of the Scriptures. In fact, it was from Augustine that the Church derived her literal approach to the Scriptures. The only Father that deviated from a six-day creation account was Origen, but he allegorized almost everything and so is an irrelevant exception to the rule.”
John Salza ( part of a post Rossum ignored )

It was not God’s philosophy that I was criticising, but yours. God said that He created evil. You said that evil created evil. It is your position that is philosophically incoherent.

God is not philosphy, read our cathechism, those are his teachings.

It is not the Evil that you think it is that the Lord uses in scripture, I’ve already proven this to you. again this is for another topic, not evolution.

Again with the moving goalposts. You asked about the authority behind an interpretation of the Bible and I gave you the authority I was using. If you disagree with the authority of the Pope then it is up to you to resolve it with the Pope.

The Pope has no authority to interpret scripture, all comes from the Holy Spirit. I beleive in the authority of the Pope but not all his ideas, because not all his ideas are infallible.
The Pope is only infallible on faith and Morals.

Utter rubbish! Did Luther’s interpretation come from man or from the Holy Spirit? Did Calvin’s interpretation come from man or from the Holy Spirit? You really need to think more carefully before you post.

Luther put himself outside the Catholic church, it is the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit is the Bride of, not Luthers or anyone elses, it is true that the Holy spirit is active in everyone, but it is at its strongest in the Catholic church, which makes the Catholic churches interpretation most accurate, this does not mean that catholics are immune from making error though, but the interpretation of the ECF’s is indeed from the Lord and infallible.

There has been no magesterial pronouncement accepting this garbage theory, ed west already has proven this. Evolution remains outside of the church as it was a theory that was formed outside the mind of the Chruch.

Those were not Augustines thoughts on scripture though. what matters is that he recognised a six-day creation, if you bothered to read my post by catholic apologist ( which you ignored ) you’d know this.

I would need to see real evidence

Yes but this Private revelation has been given the Nihil obstat ( no obstacle to the faith )
by an archbishop of the church meaning it doesnt contradict the doctrine of the faith.
although not officially approved by the church, you need to learn more about private revelations please read paragraph 67 of the cathechism.
Matthew:12:38-39 ‘‘Master’’, they said ’ we should like to see a sign from you.’ He replied, 'It is an evil and unfaithful generation that asks for a sign! ;
when I speak about the end of the world, I do not mean that its going to ‘‘end’’ the last days does not mean the end of the world, it is the end of one epoch, where evil and the world has apostosised and grown so much, and then an era of peace will come.
what then would be the use of our prayer? Glory be to the father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be world without end amen!?

We are unlikely to be able to agree on scripture. If you look at the top of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist so we do not agree on what is and what is not scripture. You use the Bible while I use the Tripitaka.

In my spiritual beginnings I was once going down the road of Buddism too, then Jesus gave me an unforgettable experience, one that changed my life and I came home to him.

your own qoutations of the fathers failed you and you ignored my post by John salza.

Yes I am back, because I cannot let a philosophical twit who carries the wisdom of this world upon his shoulders and (acts:23:3 ) who thinks he knows a thing or two about the wisdom of God Eclipse our Lord with his evolution that has no evidence, and we shall use scripture all the more to disprove him. Isaiah:55:8-9. The theory of maths is not visible proof, Maths is still a theory and Maths is something that comes from God but is distorted by Man to try and prove evolution with numbers, its ridiculous, as I a Christian and you a buddist perhaps its something we may never agree on but,
your tripitaka is nothing in comparison to our scriptures, Our Lord is the one true God, the very fact that its the most hated and persecuted religion in the world proves it. it also proves who is the prince of this world and the King who conquered it, it also proves the Lords qoutes from the Bible about the last days, and those atheistic scienctests who ‘‘Sneer at religion’’ ( Jude 18 ) and abhor revealed religion.

 

[rossum]

“the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in a six-day creation period”

This is obviously incorrect, as John Salza proceeds to tell us that both Saint Augustine and Origen did not accept a literal six day creation. Let us take another look at what Salza is saying there, but put into a different key: “Catholics are unanimous in their support for women priests, except for those Catholics who are against and whom we are ignoring”. Do you think that is a good argument? Salza cannot claim unanimity if he deliberately ignores those ECFs who disagree.

“Only Augustine offered an alternative theory: that God created everything instantly”

So the Fathers were not unanimous.

“The only Father that deviated from a six-day creation account was Origen”

Another mistake by Salza, that should have read “The only other Father …” Your source is not looking good. He claims a false unanimity by ignoring those Fathers who disagree and he cannot apparently count to two.

part of a post Rossum ignored

Ignored for good reasons, as I have pointed out. Do not just cut’n’paste stuff from the Internet - not everything on the Internet is correct. Check it first before you quote it. You are intelligent enough to have seen the flaws in Salza’s argument for yourself.

I beleive in the authority of the Pope but not all his ideas, because not all his ideas are infallible.
The Pope is only infallible on faith and Morals.

I did not claim that the Pope was infallible when speaking to the Academy. However, his words do command an element of respect and authority among Catholics simply because he was the Pope and also a learned theologian.

Luther put himself outside the Catholic church

Correct. I was merely pointing out the error in saying that “no interpretation ever came from man, but the Holy Spirit”. Luther’s interpretation was from man and not from the Holy Spirit. I am glad we can agree that not all interpretations of the Bible come from the Holy Spirit.

Yes but this Private revelation has been given the Nihil obstat

My apologies for not being clearer. When I asked for “real evidence” I should have said “real scientific evidence”. Given that the Turin Shroud has been carbon dated to medieval times you will need to show me something other than a personal opinion to convince me of its authenticity. However this is a minor point and not relevant to the main thrust of our discussion; we can probably agree to disagree on the Shroud.

In my spiritual beginnings I was once going down the road of Buddism too, then Jesus gave me an unforgettable experience, one that changed my life and I came home to him.

May you succeed on your chosen path.

evolution that has no evidence

I have already told you that those creationist sites that you are looking at are lying to you. There is indeed evidence for evolution, contrary to what they are telling you. It seems to me that you might have a case of Morton’s Demon.

your tripitaka is nothing in comparison to our scriptures, Our Lord is the one true God,

To quote the Emperor Ashoka:Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one’s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one’s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought “Let me glorify my own religion,” only harms his own religion.

• 12th Rock Edict.

rossum

 

[James224]

Hi Cassini,

In all honesty, I haven’t studied it enough to comment adequately. I’ve read some of Robert Sungenis’ articles online but they tend to be over my head scientifically. He would agree with you. From what I know, I do believe in Creationism. As funny as it sounds to most, I think there is merit in believing the earth is the center of the solar system/universe. There’s no emperical evidence to prove otherwise. Besides, Jesus shed His blood on earth. You might want to read some of Robert’s articles. Just Google his name and you’ll find them. I think the Church is right in tackling this theory (evolution) because it continues to wage war on our Faith.

May God bless,

James224

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi Cassini, In all honesty, I haven’t studied it enough to comment adequately. I’ve read some of Robert Sungenis’ articles online but they tend to be over my head scientifically. He would agree with you. From what I know, I do believe in Creationism. As funny as it sounds to most, I think there is merit in believing the earth is the center of the solar system/universe. There’s no emperical evidence to prove otherwise. Besides, Jesus shed His blood on earth. You might want to read some of Robert’s articles. Just Google his name and you’ll find them. I think the Church is right in tackling this theory (evolution) because it continues to wage war on our Faith. May God bless,James224

No – Sungenis is a garden variety crackpot, waging a war over an issued settled hundreds of years ago, long before NASA, Einstein, Hubble, and the Big Bang theory. And no – evolution does not wage war on our faith, at least not on any intellectually mature faith.

StAnastasia