Theistic evolutionism and Scripture

[Orogeny]

You know something Orogeny, heliocentricists think Newton proved what gravity is, each particle attracts other particles etc. But you are right, obviously a rebutter of Newton, yes?

Nope. Newton explained how gravity works. And he was right in a general sense. But the question to you is, what causes that attraction between the particles?

Peace

Tim

 

[cassini]

Gone over to new thread. trying to put all on one thread so everyone can have a say. Coverning a few threads at the same time is a bit of a chore. If you want me I’ll be on FAITH AND SCIENCE from now on.

 

[StAnastasia]

Gone over to new thread. trying to put all on one thread so everyone can have a say. Coverning a few threads at the same time is a bit of a chore. If you want me I’ll be on FAITH AND SCIENCE from now on.

Cassini, that’s a convenient trick isn’t it? Run away from a thread so you won’t have to answer tough questions!

 

[Marocchino]

Then I guess you and I are in the same boat.Was JPII a heretic?Was JPII a heretic? How about Benedict XVI? Or do you, along with Cassini, understand Church teaching better than those two men?OK, so I guess you do consider the last two popes heretics. That begs the question, if the Pope is a heretic, is he a valid pope?

You ask this question a lot in these forums whenever the issue of JP2’s and B16’s opinions about evolution are being discussed. First, only the proper Church authority (ie, the Magisterium) can officially declare whether someone is a heretic. Second, the personal opinions of popes regarding evolution do not have the binding authority of papal encyclicals and other official Church documents on the subject. Third, although JP2 and B16 are of the opinion that evolution is true and compatible with the Catholic faith, they have yet to try to change any doctrines (eg, the Fall, original sin, the historocity of Adam and Eve) that are related to evolution. Moreover, they have yet to explain how we are to understand these doctrines in light of evolution. Fr Pierre Teilhard tried and his books were blacklisted by the Church.

Here is a link about the scenario of a heretical pope: web.archive.org/web/20010306154403/http://rtforum.org/lt/lt87.html

 

[Orogeny]

You ask this question a lot in these forums whenever the issue of JP2’s and B16’s opinions about evolution are being discussed. First, only the proper Church authority (ie, the Magisterium) can officially declare whether someone is a heretic.

I haven’t asked if either of them have been officially labelled heretics. If the opinion of the person I was responding to is that the position either of these two popes hold is heretical, does that make them heretics? How can one hold and teach a heretical position and not be a heretic? I am asking them their opinion, not for a formal declaration by the Church.

Second, the personal opinions of popes regarding evolution do not have the binding authority of papal encyclicals and other official Church documents on the subject.

The The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution is an official Vatican document, not “personal opinions”. It was published with Cardinal Ratzinger’s approval in his role as president of the International Theological Commission.

Third, although JP2 and B16 are of the opinion that evolution is true and compatible with the Catholic faith, they have yet to try to change any doctrines (eg, the Fall, original sin, the historocity of Adam and Eve) that are related to evolution.

Why would they do that? The fall and original sin have nothing to do with evolution. The historicity of Adam and Eve is a bit more problematic, but can, I believe, be reconciled with science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Ben_Masada]

Is theistic evolutionism consistent with Scripture?

If you think so, please explain how this theory can be harmonized with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, the timeline implied by the Biblical genealogies, and the unity of the human race.

Thank you for your time.

---

First of all, the Genesis account of Creation is an allegory. Then, God creates through Evolution. When Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of Creation. It means that God has never stopped creating. Scientists have proved that the Universe expands. This also means that God is still creating.

Ben:

 

[Marocchino]

The fall and original sin have nothing to do with evolution. The historicity of Adam and Eve is a bit more problematic, but can, I believe, be reconciled with science.

The fall and original sin have everything to do with evolution. Original sin is inherited by all human beings from Adam – it is yet to be seen how evolution can be squared with monogenism. And, as you have acknowledged, the historicity of Adam and Eve is problematic in light of evolution. Yet all of these notions are central to the faith. So until B16 explains how we are to understand these dogmas in light of evolution, I am afraid we are in for much confusion, apostasy, and in-fighting between creationist and TE Catholics. I say apostasy because many people are abandoning the faith due to the inconsistencies between Scripture and popular scientific and historical opinion.

 

[buffalo]

The fall and original sin have everything to do with evolution. Original sin is inherited by all human beings from Adam – it is yet to be seen how evolution can be squared with monogenism. And, as you have acknowledged, the historicity of Adam and Eve is problematic in light of evolution. Yet all of these notions are central to the faith. So until B16 explains how we are to understand these dogmas in light of evolution, I am afraid we are in for much confusion, apostasy, and in-fighting between creationist and TE Catholics. I say apostasy because many people are abandoning the faith due to the inconsistencies between Scripture and popular scientific and historical opinion.

Agreed, we are in a thorny spot. Either we got it wrong all these years and the Holy Spirit was sleeping, or there is much more to the picture which science cannot see.

 

[Marocchino]

The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution is an official Vatican document, not “personal opinions”. It was published with Cardinal Ratzinger’s approval in his role as president of the International Theological Commission.

Does this document hold as much weight as papal encyclicals? And what kind of language is used in it? Does it explicitly accept (macro)evolution as a certain fact and does it explain how we are to understand monogenism, original sin, and the fall in light of it? Or does it merely say such things as “scientists have made a convincing case for evolution”?

 

[Orogeny]

The fall and original sin have everything to do with evolution.

No, they don’t. Evolution deals with the physical body. The fall and original sin have to do with the soul, something evolution can’t deal with.

And, as you have acknowledged, the historicity of Adam and Eve is problematic in light of evolution.

Problematic, but not a deal killer. We don’t know how they work together, but clearly they do.

Yet all of these notions are central to the faith. So until B16 explains how we are to understand these dogmas in light of evolution, I am afraid we are in for much confusion, apostasy, and in-fighting between creationist and TE Catholics. I say apostasy because many people are abandoning the faith due to the inconsistencies between Scripture and popular scientific and historical opinion.

I agree. I hate seeing people leave the Church because some insist that we discard science for a literal reading of Genesis.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

No, they don’t. Evolution deals with the physical body. The fall and original sin have to do with the soul, something evolution can’t deal with.Problematic, but not a deal killer. We don’t know how they work together, but clearly they do.I agree. I hate seeing people leave the Church because some insist that we discard science for a literal reading of Genesis.

Peace

Tim

Or some leave because of scientism.

 

[Orogeny]

Does this document hold as much weight as papal encyclicals?

Let me ask you something. If that document taught something contrary to doctrine, do you really think Cardinal Ratzinger would have approved its publication?

And what kind of language is used in it? Does it explicitly accept (macro)evolution as a certain fact and does it explain how we are to understand monogenism, original sin, and the fall in light of it? Or does it merely say such things as “scientists have made a convincing case for evolution”?

Read it for yourself.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Or some leave because of scientism.

Perhaps both, but I personally know people who refuse to return to the Church because of their assumption that the Church requires us to believe in a literal Genesis story. Is that somehow more acceptable? Should we just accept that?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps both, but I personally know people who refuse to return to the Church because of their assumption that the Church requires us to believe in a literal Genesis story. Is that somehow more acceptable? Should we just accept that?

Peace

Tim

You and I have been discussing this for a few years now.

It is a conundrum.

Most see it as an either or. I have to give Revelation and the constant belief and teaching of the church my ascent. Until I hear an overturning by the Pope in communion with the Bishops I have to keep searching for the increasing knowledge of science to affirm it. Biology seems to be the major conflict and physics is closer to truth or Revelation.

 

[Marocchino]

We don’t know how they work together, but clearly they do.I agree. I hate seeing people leave the Church because some insist that we discard science for a literal reading of Genesis.

That is my point – we don’t know how they work together. When apostate or atheistic friends ask me why a good God allows suffering I read them the passage from the Catechism, which states that Adam was created in a state of original justice and through his choice of disobedience, suffering and death entered the human condition. They laugh at this idea, because they cannot see how such ideas make sense in light of evolution. Neither can I – and neither have JP2 and B16 explained how it all makes sense.

I don’t insist that we discard science for a literal reading of Genesis – I insist that our Pope shows us how original sin and monogenism are to be understood in light of evolution. And whether Adam had non-human parents. Until he does so, the apostasy and controversy will continue.

 

[Marocchino]

Let me ask you something. If that document taught something contrary to doctrine, do you really think Cardinal Ratzinger would have approved its publication?

Cardinals aren’t infallible.

Here’s the way I look at it:

Monogenism and original sin are parts of the deposit of faith. So any idea that is irreconciliable with monog and OS cannot become a part of the dep of faith. It is yet to be shown how evolution can be reconciled with monog, since it is polygenistic when it comes to the origins of man and any other creature.

So Pope B16 can accept evol and say that evol is compatible with the faith – but until he has reconciled evol with other articles of the faith that are related to it, he cannot introduce evol into the deposit of the faith.

My understanding of heresy is that someone has introduced something into the dep of the faith that cannot be reconciled with previously accepted dogmas, or that someone has rejected a dogma (is this a correct notion? – I am no theologian). So unless B16 introduces something like evol into the dep of the faith without showing how it can be reconciled with other dogmas, he cannot be judged a heretic – and this judgement would come from the Magisterium and not laymen, which is why it is nonsense for you to continue to ask laymen whether they think B16 (and JP2) are heretics for accepting evol.

Orogeny, has evol been introduced in to the deposit of faith? To my knowledge, it is neither in the Catechism nor supported by any patristic writings or papal encyclicals. My understanding is that you are free to accept it or not, but you must still hold to monog and orig sin (which I find is a difficult feat).

 

[Orogeny]

Cardinals aren’t infallible.

I assume that the cardinal knew and understood the issues we are discussing.

Monogenism and original sin are parts of the deposit of faith. So any idea that is irreconciliable with monog and OS cannot become a part of the dep of faith. It is yet to be shown how evolution can be reconciled with monog, since it is polygenistic when it comes to the origins of man and any other creature.

You need to read the document. I would be interested in your take on Paragraph 63, specifically this passage: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” (bolding added by me).

So Pope B16 can accept evol and say that evol is compatible with the faith – but until he has reconciled evol with other articles of the faith that are related to it, he cannot introduce evol into the deposit of the faith.

Do you think that you and I, just normal Catholics, are allowed to accept evolution as true?

My understanding of heresy is that someone has introduced something into the dep of the faith that cannot be reconciled with previously accepted dogmas, or that someone has rejected a dogma (is this a correct notion?

I’ll ask you the same question I asked a friend of mine (and you may not know the answer which is ok) - Can a layman be a heretic? I keep reading these definitions that say that to be a heretic one must introduce something into the deposit of faith, but since you and I cannot do that, can we ever be heretics?

So unless B16 introduces something like evol into the dep of the faith without showing how it can be reconciled with other dogmas, he cannot be judged a heretic – and this judgement would come from the Magisterium and not laymen, which is why it is nonesense for you to continue to ask people whether they think B16 (and JP2) are heretics for accepting evol.

Again, we have posters here at Catholic Answers that will tell you that you are a heretic if you accept evolution or deny geocentrism. Back to my question - is that possible without an official ruling by the Church? If one believes and teaches something that is opposed to the deposit of faith, is that person a heretic?

I’m not real big on that legalistic definition of what a heretic is. That seems to me to be a way of avoiding direct questions about a poster’s opinion.

Orogeny, has evol been introduced in to the deposit of faith?

Of course not. Neither has gravity, magnetics, plate tectonics, genetics, classic mechanics, dentistry, botany, stratigraphy…

To my knowledge, it is neither in the Catechism nor supported by any patristic writings or papal encyclicals. My understanding is that you are free to accept it or not, but you must still hold to monog and orig sin (which I find to be a difficult feat).

What happens if I don’t hold to monogenism or original sin? What if I insist on polygenism, even if I understand that the Church teaches monogenism?

Peace

Tim

 

[Marocchino]

What if I insist on polygenism, even if I understand that the Church teaches monogenism?

Then you must explain how we are to understand original sin in a polygenistic scenario.

Or do you also insist that there is no original sin of Adam, even if you understand that the Church teaches that there is?

 

[Marocchino]

What happens if I don’t hold to monogenism or original sin? What if I insist on polygenism, even if I understand that the Church teaches monogenism?

Then you would be in the same boat as those who reject other dogmas? Or are some dogmas more important than others?

 

[Orogeny]

Then you would be in the same boat as those who reject other dogmas? Or are some dogmas more important than others?

No, I just wondered what your response would be.

Peace

Tim