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

[Stephentlig]

“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?

This has got nothing to do with the infallible ECF’s interpretation, from what I can see in that line is that he picks out the Catholics who are unanimous for women priests, except those catholics whom we are ignoring, thus we conclude that not all Catholics are unanimous upon the subject of wanting women priests. a majority of Catholics are unanimous for women priests and a majority of Catholics are unanimous in opposition of women priests. the different with ECf’s is that we are dealing with infallible interpretation.

St.Augustine never strayed from the truth of a six-day creation, he had a theory, but even all those years ago, our lovely ECF Aug even knew his theory was just a theory and inconsistent therefore he stuck with the his six-day literal account of Creation ''as a legitimate interpretation of the scriptures. he offered his theory but as we can see, he only took the six-day creation.
*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. *

"The only other Father

The only Father*'s*

The only Father, we thus see he is singles out only origen. language does not count, many people here get the jist of what he says. they are his mistakes in expressing himself not the Lords ( thats if he makes a mistake, but I dont see it )

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.

Yes of course, this is why Catholic apologists are able to challenge his ideas, in a God fearing manner and with respect, I have shown no disrespect. As for learned theologians, God is the only theologian and men are labelled theologians but we are his weak instruments, but just because the Pope is a learned and labelled theologian does not mean he is incapable of error, many Popes in the past commited naughty sins, but as Acts:5:29 says we must obey God before we obey man.

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.

only if those interpretations do not steer away from the infallible interpretation of the Church which is why protestents are 30,000 and we are still one holy Catholic and apostolic church. when I qouted Isaiah55 I wasnt interpreting I was giving you the literal and obvious. There is no other way one can veiw that peice of scripture.

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

well if you go and look it up on the internet you’ll see that they admitted they got the dates wrong back in 86 i think it was, this is why Man cannot trust Man and can only put his trust in the infallible word and Church of God. and why ‘‘No man can be relied on’’ Psalms11.

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.
I have not gotten any source from a creationist site, all my sources are from the church ‘‘The pillar and bulwark of the truth’’ the theory of evolution was created outside of the Church, and not from within, it therefore is alien to the church and a fable, therefore those thoughts of man are not the Lords thoughts ( isaiah55:8-9) its one of mans favorite weapons against our Lord, just take a look around you Rossum, Christianity is been persecuted on the tele and all over the world people are ok on a majority when it comes to other religions but why not Christianity?

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.

Considering that we Christian Glorify God by spreading the Gospel, if we took on these thoughts from Emporer of ashoka we should all shut up and keep to ourselves, Had saint Paul of taken this attitude he would never of spread Christianity, or debated with the Jews or any other Pagans for that matter. from the words of the Holy Spirit through saint Paul ‘’’‘for him I have accepted the loss of everything, and I look on everything as so much rubbish if only I can have Christ.’’ ( ph:3:8) and your worldly wisdom has nothing to do with Christ and his church and is therefore ‘‘rubbish’’

Stephen<3

 

[James224]

StAnastasia;

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

My Resonse: This is one of the few times I won’t argue because my knowledge is very limited.Sungenis may be a crackpot on science but he is definitely not on the Faith. He’s just the opposite. I realize I have a lot to learn in this area. Thanks for your response!

James224

 

[reggieM]

I’m afraid that it appears that you do not know or have not read any books by theistic scientists.

Your judgement here has not served you well. If you judge nature also on a similarily faulty understanding of what is “appears” to be, then I wouldn’t trust your judgement on that either.

Please correct me if I am wrong here.

As above, you’re wrong. I’ve read Collins’ book and enough of Miller to understand his position. I do not find them to be coherent or convincing – nor does mainstream science for that matter, since they represent an extreme minority view. But I don’t have a problem with minority views as such, as long as that is not used as an argument against ID theory.

 

[Namesake]

But I don’t have a problem with minority views as such, as long as that is not used as an argument against ID theory.

I bet that you would like to rephrase that a little. Do you really mean that you have a problem with arguments against ID? I mean, even if the argument is sound?

 

[edwest2]

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: “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.

“anti-evolution antics” appear to be the only concern of some. God? Pfft! What God? As long as you accept evolution…

I encourage my fellow Catholics to consider the real reason some post here in desperate defense of evolution or science. Believing in a theory has become the new circumcision, the requirement to enter into a relationship with God. The Church does not require this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for the clarification.

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.

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 91is 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

AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION

 

[geoformeo]

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.

All that you point out is a semantic issue. Belief in the cause of some action (Jesus exorcising demons by the power of the Holy Spirit), requires, by necessity, unbelief in an opposing possibility for the cause of said action (Jesus exorcising demons by the power of Beelzebul). If God created the universe and natural/physical laws, and if evolution by natural selection is found to be the physical method chosen by the Holy Spirit (the Lord and giver of life) as the Author of Life for the origin and development of new organisms from old ones, and if you denounce this physical process as false and the work of the devil, then how could you not be attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan?

God has *not * told us through His Church that we are to interpret the entire Genesis creation stories literally. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI. How do you not see the figurative language at work in these stories? Genesis 2:2 says “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work He had been doing, He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had undertaken.” Why would an omnipotent God need to rest? Or is He trying to tell an ancient, “stiff-necked” people a moral truth (which, like all moral teachings, still hold true today) through a story that they could comprehend, that they (we) must take at least one day a week to remain dependent on God and not get wrapped up too much in their (our) own work, lest they (we) start believing they (we) are self-sufficient.

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.

Your assertion about the apostasy may be true, but what cause do you suggest for such apostasy? While the reasons for a person abandoning his/her faith are sure to vary from person to person, I too am willing to make a bet that an underlying theme is that all they were ever taught was that you had to believe in either God or science, presented as an unresolvable dichotomy by both atheist scientists and YECers alike. And for a great deal of people (millions, as you say), accepting the scientifically inaccurate, literal rendering of the creation stories is unreasonable, and because they have not been presented with an alternative position (both God and science), they reject God. As a Christian scientist I have seen this far too much, and such is my angst against Young-Earth Creationism. In my experience, it has done nothing but repel individuals from God.

By the way, many of these individuals do not accept evolution and reject the creation stories as a whole. Rather, they just reject the literal interpretation of the creation stories.

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)

A little exegesis for clarification here. You claim that we evolutionists don’t believe what Jesus says, because we don’t believe what Moses wrote, quoting Jesus in John 5:46-47. If you actually take the verse in context, Jesus is talking about the unbelief of Jesus’ hearers in His works of good will as having come from the Father, and cites Moses as the one who will condemn them because he wrote about Jesus. Jesus’ use of Moses’ writings here has nothing to do with the acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather is highlighting that the writings of Moses testify to what Jesus as the Messiah would be like and the “good fruit” that He will produce.

What more do you need to know?

Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question.

 

[geoformeo]

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!).

Actually, no, God did not say “The Earth is 6,000 years old.” That is one interpretation of God’s Word, and not one proclaimed infallibly by the Church. Regarding your signature, again, you are using it out of context. Yes, Jesus as Second Adam is integral to the Gospel, but matters only in the context that Jesus as the true Son of God was obedient to the Father and made restoration for the original sin committed by Adam. It has nothing to do with Adam being specially created by God (though he was, in a spiritual sense, being the first Homo sapiens to have been infused with a soul) or the timing of the event.

“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)

Who is preaching a different Jesus or a different Gospel? Man’s physical bodies are descended from ape-like animals, as God reveals to us through science. If Jesus was truly human as well as truly God (which is the Gospel we believe), then His soul would have inhabited such a body, and would have elevated its stature, much in the same way that the fertilized human egg and developing embryo has an elevated stature as Jesus Himself began His earthly origins in such a manner and did not come as a fully mature human. This is not a presentation of a “different Jesus” as was being posed by gnostics and others when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians. Physical laws, created by Jesus Himself, cannot reveal a “different Jesus” like the ones that Paul was criticizing, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

 

[geoformeo]

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!

What my question implies is that those who are shut off from examining the scientific validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and/or will not take the time to produce a viable scientific alternative are willfully choosing not to reason. If you are going to refute evolution, you need to refute it on scientific grounds, because it is a scientific theory, after all.

What you can’t seem to comprehend is that I do believe the Word of God, and that it tells me God created the heavens and the Earth and everything contained therein. Therefore, my life’s work as a scientist is (not the only, but) a pathway to “learning all about God, His creation, His purpose, His plan, and His secrets,” because “The heavens declare the glory of God.” (Psalm 19:2)

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.

Actually, no, there was much I wanted to address in your hypotheticals, but I’m sorry, this forum is not my life. I have a wife and kids that take much higher priority and more of my time. I hope you understand.

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?

Praise be to God for however you (or anyone) makes it back to the Church. I truly am glad you are home. But as I mentioned in my previous post, that has not been my experience with YEC and you are an anomaly in that regard. Certainly, even you must agree that there are different ways of evangelizing the Gospel, and ways not to evangelize. For instance, I work with a bunch of agnostics (scientists) who are utterly turned off from Christianity due to YEC. They at least turn an eye and ear back toward Christ when I discuss theistic evolution with them. This is why I deliberately stated that I don’t mind you challenging other Christians with your YEC position, just not non-Christians. Different evangelization approaches are warranted in different cases.

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

You know, the nice thing Luke65, is that at the end of the day, we are brothers in Christ. We worship the same Lord, we aspire for the same heaven, and we seek the same forgiveness of sins. We may agree to disagree, but that is the nature of dialogue sometimes. I hope you know that I have no ill will towards you, and respect your fervor for the faith. I, too, have some secrets of the kingdom that I am trying to convey to you

I think we can both agree on this: Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[Stephentlig]

The Earth Was Created in Six Days
Gen. 1:3,6,9,14,20,24,26 – God creates by saying “let there be…and there was…” God’s Word brings into existence that which He desires. If the creation story in Genesis is interpreted literally, then evolution (that matter, not God, formed things) is a false theory. Should we interpret the book of Genesis literally? The Catholic Church, in adopting the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”). There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach that God created all things out of nothing in six literal days. Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation:

Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 – “and there was evening and there was morning, (one) day.” When the Hebrew word for day (yom) is used with an ordinal number as it is in these verses, it always means a literal twenty-four hour period of time. It never means an indefinite period. The “evening and morning” phrase in connection with “day” proves that this is a twenty-four hour period of time. See, for example, Ex. 16:8,12,13; 27:21; 29:39; Lev. 24:3; Num. 9:21; and Dan. 8:26 where “evening and morning” always refers to a twenty-four hour period. Num. 20:15 – “we dwelt in Egypt a long time.” Here, the plural of “yom” (Hebrew, yomin) is used to describe “a long time.” The phrase uses “yommin rabbim” which means “many days.” This is because that is what the verse literally intends to say. In Genesis 1, the singular “yom” is used with an ordinal number to signify a single day. Also, note that “yomin” is used over 700 times in the Bible, and it always refers to literal days. Isa. 4:2 – “in that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious.” Here, “yom” means an indefinite period. But this is because it describes the Lord, whose glory lasts indefinitely. Also, “yom” is not followed by an ordinal number like it is in the Genesis creation account, nor is it followed by “evening and morning” which refers to a single day.

Gen. 2:7 – “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground…” Evolution says that man came from an ape, while Genesis says that man came from the ground. This verse also shows that the Lord God “formed man.” There is nothing about secondary causes forming man, even though evolution claims that secondary causes (apes, living matter) formed man and other living things over millions of years.

Gen. 2:19 – “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and bird of the air…” This verse teaches us that God created the animals just like He created humans. There is nothing to suggest a process of natural transformation. God creates directly.

Gen. 1:20 – “And God said, let the waters swarm with the living soul of swarmers.” This is another verse which demonstrates that God, not the water, is doing the creating. The Hebrew for “swarm” (sharets) is not in the causative as it is used in other places in Scripture (e.g., Ex. 8:3; Psalm 105:30).

Gen. 1:24 – “let the earth bring forth living creatures…” Evolutionists argue that this verse proves living creatures came from the earth, not from God. But nothing in the texts suggests that God is not the one doing the creating. When we view references to “earth” in the Genesis account, the phrase “earth bring forth” necessarily refers to “where” the animals were created, not “how” they were created. There is no text in Genesis (or elsewhere in Scripture) that suggests the usage of “earth” is in a causative sense.

Psalm 104:30 – “When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created…” This verse tells us that God’s Spirit creates instantaneously. Scripture never says that matter creates other matter, or that creation occurs over millions of years.

Psalm 104:2-10,14,19-20,24,24 – these are more verses which show that God directly creates, without using secondary causes. Job 38:4-13; 40:15; 41:31 – these are additional verses which reveal how God creates the things of creation. There is no indication of any secondary causes.

2 Macc. 7:28 – “I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.” This is a very explicit text from the inspired book of Maccabees which expressly rejects the theory of evolution.

Heb. 11:3 – “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” God reveals that He has created the universe “ex nihilo” (out of nothing).

 

[Stephentlig]

Magisterium
In affirming the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God created all things, material and spiritual, out of nothing. Here is a very brief chronology of the Church’s teaching on the creation of the universe:

561 – Pope Pelagius I writes a letter to King Childebert I in which he states: “For I confess that…Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man.” The early Church always affirmed that man was formed from the earth, and not from an ape.

1215 – Lateran Council IV – “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).

1860 – Council of Cologne – “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore, we declare that…those…who…assert…man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” The Church again affirms that man is not the product of an evolutionary process. Man was formed “immediately.”

1870 – Vatican Council I issues 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).

1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states: “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.

 

[Stephentlig]

Now here is a question to all those who think they are Catholic and to all those Non Catholics and Catholics too.

Can you Describe to me, the fragrance of a Rose? ( close your eyes and think about it before you read on )

I asked my girlfriend, and she said, I could tell you it smells like coffee mixed with oranges lol!!

But thing is, is that its only an anology of the fragrance, and her description of the fragrance is never the truth, infact it comes nowhere near it. so, we are left with this conclusion, in order for me to be able to truly experience the Rose, I am left with no other option but to smell the Rose and thus truly experience the Rose. This is why the Catholic church teaches that all human representations always fall short of the mystery of God.

its the same with evolution, your description is nowhere near how it happened, because you were not there, in order to truly see what happened you’ve got to go back to the beginning for yourselves, but you cant, neither I nor you was there at the beginning, this is why Jesus gave us a detailed account of what happened in the book of Genesis.

You’ve ultimately lost the debate.
God bless you
Stephen<3
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=270&pictureid=1897

 

[Stephentlig]

Actually, no, God did not say “The Earth is 6,000 years old.” That is one interpretation of God’s Word, and not one proclaimed infallibly by the Church.

And finally, Because the word is already infallible and its the Bible in the church, the church in the Bible, the chronological order is indeed one from God and is indeed one that is proclaimed infallible by the Church.

Stephen <3
( 1corinthians:1:20 ) Do you see now how God has shown up the foolishness of human wisdom?

Genesis 5 genealogies:

Adam was 130 years old when he had Seth (Gen. 5:3) = 130
Seth was 105 years old when he had Enos (Gen. 5:6) = 105
Enos was 90 years old when he had Cainan (Gen. 5:9) = 90
Cainan was 70 years old when he had Maleel (Gen 5:12) = 70
Maleel was 65 years old when he had Jared (Gen 5:14) = 65
Jared was 162 years old when he had Henoch (Gen 5:18) = 162
Henoch was 65 years old when he had Mathusala (Gen 5:21) = 65
Mathusala was 187 years old when he had Lamech (Gen 5:25) = 187
Lamech was 182 years old when he had Noe (Gen 5:28) = 182
Noe was 500 years old when he had Sem, Cham and Japheth (Gen 5:31) = 500
The total years from the creation of Adam to Sem’s birth = 1556 years
The total years from the creation to the flood = 1654 years (1556 + first 98 years of Sem’s life)
The total years from creation to Noe’s death is 2006 years (Gen 9:29 says Noe lived 950 years; so Noe was 500 years old at Sem’s birth + he lived another 450 years, which means 1556 years + 450 years = 2006 years)
Genesis 11 genealogies:

Sem was 100 years old when he had Arphaxad (Gen 11:10) = 100 (the flood occurred 2 years earlier when Sem was 98; see Gen 11:10).
Arphaxad was 35 years old when he had Sale (Gen 11:12) = 35
Sale was 35 years old when he had Seber (Gen 11:14) = 35
Heber was 34 years old when he had Phaleg (Gen 11:16) = 34
Phaleg was 30 years old when he had Reu (Gen 11:18) = 30
Reu was 32 years old when he had Sarug (Gen 11:20) = 32
Sarug was 30 years old when he had Nachor (Gen 11:22) = 30
Nachor was 29 years old when he had Thare (Gen 11:24) = 29
Thare was 70 years old when he had Abram (Gen 11:26) = 70
Thus, the total years from Sem’s birth to Abram’s birth = 395 years
The total years from creation to Abram’s birth is 1951 years, which is 2006 total years from creation to Noe - 450 (950 total Noe years - 500 years when Sem was born) + 395 = 1951 years (this means Noe lived for the first 55 years of Abraham’s life).
Or, 1556 years (creation to Sem’s birth) + 395 years (Sem’s birth to Abram’s birth) = 1951 years from creation to Abram’s birth.
We piece the rest of the time line together by the following facts and assumptions:

Extra-biblical evidence indicates that the division of the Davidic kingdom (between Rehoboam and Jeroboam) occurred at 931 B.C. (see 1 Kings 12). Support is found in 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chron. 2:12 which say that Shishak, who according to historical records rampaged Rehov in 925 B.C., came against Jerusalem in the “fifth year of Rehoboam” (or about 931 B.C.). We note that the footnote in the Douay-Rheims Bible for 3Kings 12 sets the division at 975 B.C., so there is a potential 44 year discrepancy. We use 931 B.C. based on the Masoretic text and the extrabiblical evidence which says that 931 B.C. is the year in which King Solomon died and the kingdom split.
Solomon reigned 40 years (1 Kings 11:42) which means he reigned from 971 B.C. to 931 B.C. There were 480 years between Solomon’s fourth year (967 B.C.) and the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1). This brings us to 1447 B.C. (967 + 480).
The Exodus lasted 430 years (Ex. 12:41), and commenced when Jacob entered into Egypt. This brings us to 1877 B.C. (1447 + 430). So the Exodus started in about 1877 B.C. and ended in 1447 B.C. This 430 time span is confirmed by Exodus 6:14-29 which adds the years of Levi (77 years), Koath (133 years), Amram (137 years) and Aaron’s age (83; see Ex. 7:7; Num. 33:39); 77 + 133 + 137 + 83 = 430 years.
Jacob lived to be 147 years old (Gen. 47:28), and lived in Egypt for 70 of those years (Gen. 47:28). This means Jacob was 77 when he entered into Egypt (147 – 70); 1877 + 77 = 1954 B.C.
Isaac was 60 years old when he had Jacob (Gen. 25:26); 1954 + 60 = 2014 B.C.
Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac (Gen. 21:5); 2014 + 100 = 2114 B.C. This puts Abraham’s birth at about 2214 B.C. (2114 + 100), which was 1951 years after creation (see above). Abraham lived for 175 years (Gen. 25:7) which means Abraham died around 2039 B.C. Because Noe was 600 years old at the time of the flood (Gen 7:11), this means the world was about 1654 years old at the time of the flood (2006 - 950 + 600 = 1656 less 2 years of Sem; or 1556 years from Adam to Sem’s birth + 98 years of Sem’s life to the flood = 1654 years.
If Abram was born in 2214 B.C., and the flood occurred 297 years before Abram’s birth (1951 years from creation to Abram’s birth less 1654 years age of earth at flood), then the flood would have occurred at 2214 + 297 = 2511 B.C. (when the world was 1654 years old).
1951 years from creation to Abram’s birth + 2214 years from Abram’s birth to the birth of Christ = 4165 years. This puts creation at 4165 B.C.
So when the world was 1654 years old at the flood, it was 2511 B.C. When the world was 1951 years old at Abram’s birth, it was 2214 B.C. Here is the check: 2511 - 2214 = 297; 1951 - 1654 = 297 (the number of years from the flood to Abram’s birth).
Thus, we have the following: 4165 B.C. + 2005 A.D. = 6170

4165 = (1951 years from creation to Abram’s birth + 2214 years from Abram’s birth to the birth of Christ) + 2005 years from the birth of Christ to the present day (2005, Anno Domini) =

---

 

[rossum]

And finally, Because the word is already infallible and its the Bible in the church, the church in the Bible, the chronological order is indeed one from God and is indeed one that is proclaimed infallible by the Church.

You should be aware that some of the genealogies given in the Bilbe have gaps in them. Hence any dates arrived at are unreliable unless you have independent confirmation that the particular genealogy you are using is free of gaps. An obvious example of a genealogy with gaps is Matthew 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham
That is a genealogy with a great many gaps in it. Adding up the ages of David and Abraham does not give a correct answer for the time between Abraham and Jesus.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You should be aware that some of the genealogies given in the Bilbe have gaps in them. Hence any dates arrived at are unreliable unless you have independent confirmation that the particular genealogy you are using is free of gaps. An obvious example of a genealogy with gaps is Matthew 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of AbrahamThat is a genealogy with a great many gaps in it. Adding up the ages of David and Abraham does not give a correct answer for the time between Abraham and Jesus.

rossum

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

 

[reggieM]

I bet that you would like to rephrase that a little. Do you really mean that you have a problem with arguments against ID? I mean, even if the argument is sound?

I’m sorry – I don’t understand the questions or the point raised here.

 

[reggieM]

So I see StAnastasia has decided to carry on the Barbarian’s dirty work.

Fortunately, Barbarian was banned from CAF – for reasons which are obvious to anyone who objected to his ridicule of people and distortions of the Catholic Faith.

StA already knows that Pope Benedict didn’t believe that common ancestry was “virtually certain” when that document was published,

Thanks again for bringing this quote to light. You’ve posted it before, so as you correctly state, it’s contents are known and therefore ignored in this case.

 

[Stephentlig]

Interpreting the Genealogies of Genesis

Challenged with the idea that Adam’s date is 4004 BC and that the Flood occurred in 2238 BC, Robert Sungenis shows that, according to biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham. Read as Robert shows that the genealogies are actually a biblical calendar that takes us back to about the year 10,000 BC, with the Flood occurring around 5,000 BC.

That was a lovely read, thank you

 

[Luke65]

All that you point out is a semantic issue. Belief in the cause of some action (Jesus exorcising demons by the power of the Holy Spirit), requires, by necessity, unbelief in an opposing possibility for the cause of said action (Jesus exorcising demons by the power of Beelzebul). If God created the universe and natural/physical laws, and if evolution by natural selection is found to be the physical method chosen by the Holy Spirit (the Lord and giver of life) as the Author of Life for the origin and development of new organisms from old ones, and if you denounce this physical process as false and the work of the devil, then how could you not be attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan?

I see. So if God created all things instantaneously over 6 days on earth, like the Holy Spirit said He did, then how can you not be blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying that He did it over billions of years of everything evolving? Are you sure you want to continue this line of reasoning? Let’s move on.

Your problem is that you look at the Holy Scriptures and you believe that the literal interpretation of the six days of Creation is “untenable”; but then you look at the scientific evidence and you can only see one way to interpret it - and its infallible! Did you know that the Pre-Cambrian strata, which dates by radioactive decay at billions of years old, has been dated by helium diffusion at about 6,000 years old? Quite a coincidence, don’t you think? Did you know that Dr. Russell Humphreys accurately predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus based on a 6,000 year old solar system, while mainstream science’s prediction was off by 100,000 times?! Did you know that diamonds, which are supposedly billions of years old, have been carbon-dated in the 50-80 thousand year old range? And that the whole fossil record carbon-dates younger than that, even though its supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old? Did you know that “mitochondrial Eve” was estimated to have lived about 6,000 years ago? Did you know that I could go on and on? But I ask you, which of these methods is the infallible one?! Answer: the ones that agree with the Word of God can be accepted, the others must be reinterpreted in the light of divine revelation.

God has *not * told us through His Church that we are to interpret the entire Genesis creation stories literally. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI. How do you not see the figurative language at work in these stories? Genesis 2:2 says “Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work He had been doing, He rested on the seventh day from all the work He had undertaken.” Why would an omnipotent God need to rest?

How do you not see that you are beating the pulp out of a straw man? (see my last post - “complete biblical literalism”)

Or is He trying to tell an ancient, “stiff-necked” people a moral truth (which, like all moral teachings, still hold true today) through a story that they could comprehend, that they (we) must take at least one day a week to remain dependent on God and not get wrapped up too much in their (our) own work, lest they (we) start believing they (we) are self-sufficient.

That’s a spiritual meaning…

Catechism

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

You should read that whole section (and so should Rossum!)

A little exegesis for clarification here. You claim that we evolutionists don’t believe what Jesus says, because we don’t believe what Moses wrote, quoting Jesus in John 5:46-47.

Whoa! Its a question. Jesus asked it as a question. And I understand when not to go beyond what is written. But the answer for many is that they apostatize; others compartmentalize, like I did. I believed what Jesus said, but not what Moses wrote. But that crack in the foundation of my faith, the foundation of the Word of God - Genesis - led me into a life of sin. I didn’t take the Word of God seriously, so I didn’t take the Church seriously. And that disease has infected millions of Catholics. If you want Catholics to come home, you’d better get them to believe that God means what He says.

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)

 

[Luke65]

If you actually take the verse in context, Jesus is talking about the unbelief of Jesus’ hearers in His works of good will as having come from the Father, and cites Moses as the one who will condemn them because he wrote about Jesus. Jesus’ use of Moses’ writings here has nothing to do with the acceptance of a literal interpretation of Genesis, but rather is highlighting that the writings of Moses testify to what Jesus as the Messiah would be like and the “good fruit” that He will produce.

Oh, the hypocrisy! Talk about a wooden, literal interpretation! Here’s a little secret about Scripture interpretation: if that was all the passage means, it wouldn’t have been recorded in the Bible. The last thing we need is another passage about the incredulity of the Pharisees. Let me give you another example because its an excellent evangelical tool. Jesus told the Jews to obey the Pharisees, even if they’re wicked, because they “sit in the seat of Moses” (Matthew 23:2). But this wasn’t recorded in the New Testament to tell the Jews to obey the Pharisees! Jesus is telling us to obey the pope and the bishops because they sit in the seat of Peter and the Apostles. So in the same way, Jesus is rebuking us for our incredulity in what Moses wrote, since we believe that Moses accurately foretold the future - including the coming of Christ - but we don’t believe that he could accurately tell us the past.

St. Augustine: “Wherefore no one who considerately weighs facts will doubt that Cain might have built a city, and that a large one, when it is observed how prolonged were the lives of men, unless perhaps some sceptic take exception to this very length of years which our authors ascribe to the antediluvians and deny that this is credible… But the length of an antediluvian’s life cannot now be proved by any such monumental evidence. But we are not on this account to withhold our faith from the sacred history, whose statements of past fact we are the more inexcusable in discrediting, as we see the accuracy of its prediction of what was future.” (The City of God, XV, 9)

And how can you deny the prophetic nature of what Jesus said here when you see it being fulfilled right before your own eyes?! Millions of Christians have stopped believing what Jesus said because they first stopped believing what Moses wrote.

And notice, I am not denying the literal interpretation - it happened - but I am building the spiritual meaning on the sure foundation of the literal meaning. That’s called good exegesis.

Regarding your signature, again, you are using it out of context. Yes, Jesus as Second Adam is integral to the Gospel, but matters only in the context that Jesus as the true Son of God was obedient to the Father and made restoration for the original sin committed by Adam. It has nothing to do with Adam being specially created by God (though he was, in a spiritual sense, being the first Homo sapiens to have been infused with a soul) or the timing of the event.

How can you possibly say that? Oh yeah, I forgot, you’re an evolutionist, you have to make the Bible fit the theory, regardless of what the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Why is Seth called “the son of Adam” in that same verse? Because he got his spirit from Adam? No! Because he got his body from Adam (and Eve). And Adam is called “the son of God” because he got his body from God.

Who is preaching a different Jesus or a different Gospel? Man’s physical bodies are descended from ape-like animals, as God reveals to us through science.

Do I need to comment?

If Jesus was truly human as well as truly God (which is the Gospel we believe), then His soul would have inhabited such a body, and would have elevated its stature, much in the same way that the fertilized human egg and developing embryo has an elevated stature as Jesus Himself began His earthly origins in such a manner and did not come as a fully mature human. This is not a presentation of a “different Jesus” as was being posed by gnostics and others when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians. Physical laws, created by Jesus Himself, cannot reveal a “different Jesus” like the ones that Paul was criticizing, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Okay, I will comment: Jesus, the Son of an “ape-like animal”, is a different Jesus, a different Gospel then the one we received.

“I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge [Latin: *scientia]. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.” (2 Corinthians 11:6)

But you say that St. Paul was completely clueless about 4.6 billion years of history.

“I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool.” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Evolutionists do the same thing the gnostics did, they think they have “secret knowledge” that the Apostles didn’t know about. But St. Paul was no fool, he knew:

“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

That is not metaphorical.