There’s plenty of evidence at work in the church’s views on things - ranging from biblical teaching and church tradition to science and philosophy. And the Church does not deny that Adam and Eve had parents
I second Buffalow’s call for “Catholic Sources for that” and your reply didn’t seem to provide any such sources.
- as I said, they’re entirely at home with the theory of evolution, the theory that Adam and Eve could have had biological precursors (in other words, parents). But there comes a break between that biological lineage at a certain point - a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. Even science admits as much, which is why biologists don’t say the human race is billions of years old (stretching us back to the origin of life) but vastly less than that.
I humbly admit to an extensive knowledge of evolutionary biology but I don’t recognise that sentiment as being part of the theory. By its very nature, evolution is a “continuum” consisting, in the main of very small inter-generational changes. There are some well known “Major evolutionary transitions” but they don’t seem to be what you mean by "“breaks” in a biological lineage? So I don’t understand what you mean?
The designation “Human race” is not a term used in biology. The species “Homo-sapiens” (Wise Human) are bipedal primates in the family “Hominid” thought to have originated in Africa some 250,000 years ago. Previous Hominid species existed in some profusion but the concept of a “break” is not one that I am familiar with?
- Faith and baptism - but even far preceding LG was the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Baptism of desire lines up entirely with LG - an implicit (not explicit) desire for baptism by sincere seekers of God. The discussions of the range of the baptisms of desire and blood has been ongoing for awhile now - hence the whole discussion about the fates of unbaptized infants, the range of culpability in play in any given sin or act, etc.
So, again, there is no contradiction.
Hmm… I present you with a simple and well documented contradiction and you respond with that?
I am unable to see any connection with my point or discern what you mean. I suppose that means that, from my perspective, you seem to be “waffling”. Or perhaps even “rambling”.
No, it doesn’t. To know is to be certain - to believe involves having some faith. I mean, look at what you just said - ‘I know, but I don’t believe’. Rather indicates ‘knowing’ doesn’t mean ‘believing’, don’t you think?
I fully accept that words mean different things to different people. I normally use the word “KNOW” to denote the possession of information. The extent and completeness of that information usually requires further qualification and “certainty” is only ever approached. It is never achieved.
It’s a good thing you’re demonstrably and entirely misreading LG, then - I already provided a fair chunk of it that not only argues that people of other faiths and non-believers can well be saved, but that being in the Church itself is not a guarantee of salvation. In fact, proclaiming yourself to be Catholic just to give yourself a false image of being pious or being a member of the community is a grave mistake.
Yes I know and that is a feature of documents that present multiple and contradictory statements relating to the same issue. Selective quoting can be used in support of any of the incompatible conclusions. I call this the
"Rent-A-Proof" scenario and you seem to be invoking it here.
So I agree that LG says what you say it says. My point is that is also states the converse elsewhere and thereby contradicts itself.
It’s more a matter of being well-versed IN logic, as well history and language, particularly where the Church is concerned.
Well… um… even though I have to say so myself… I am so well versed in those areas.
Back to the baptisms of desire and blood - and it’s worth noting that not every teaching of the church, even teachings related to an explicit infallible declaration, are without discussion.
Aw gees! What can “Infallible” possibly mean if it doesn’t mean “Not open to discussion”. I have seen that stated explicitly somewhere. I’ll try to find it.
There are various opinions and views among orthodox theologians in good standing who take an assortment of views - hence why topics such as invincible ignorance, culpability, and their relation to salvation get discussed. It’s why there are theologians to begin with; if all aspects of the Church were considered utter certainty, there’d be no use for theologians.
Some say that all of religion is the work of theologians and I have some sympathy with that view.
What you really mean is that you have a certain interpretation, and by your interpretation there is a contradiction. It’s not much of a concern; your interpretation is clearly not correct, and other interpretations are available and reasonable.
Well of course! By definition, I can only think what I think. But I’m humble and I want to know if anybody can present a case that causes me to think differently. I pose questions, I don’t impose answers.
“No one can say.” The Church won’t take a position on whether Pilate or Judas were saved or damned. They can say what would aid in your salvation, what would aid your life, what may warrant harsher judgment - but if you’re asking for an explicit formula for salvation/damnation that applies to a wider variety of people than saints, you’re going to come up short. You don’t get certainty even being a believing Catholic.
Gosh II !
LG14 is quite specific about who is to be damned and who is to be saved. It presents a highly specific formula that amounts to “Believe - or else be damned!”
Am I to presume that you guys don’t agree with LG? If so then tell me why you consider a document that claims it is infallible to be wrong?
"
Edit: And, pertinent enough from the Panzer Pope himself:
zenit.org/article-14695?l=english
Gosh III !
Plese explain why that is not a direct ***Rent-A-Proof ***contradiction of para 14 of Lumen Gentium - a well known infallible document.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Emotel.
P.S. I have a supply of humble pills if you need them.
