T
thistle
Guest
Let me understand this. Are you saying that you are not here because your mother and father had sexual intercourse but that you were not there one second and poof you were suddenly there the next second?
- Status
R
Rogerteder
Guest
No I just said that is not the case. What I said was the council has to be teaching that God immediately created each species. Evolution denies this. Evolution says one species evolved into another by a common ancestor. If that is the case, then God didn’t immediately create each species. It seems as if bothLateran IV, and Vatican I deny theistic evolution. Especially, as the first post states the Vatican I statement came immediately after Darwin’s theory started to really take hold.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
My mind is of a Scientific nature, my soul is one of Faith.
I see no conflict.
I have a wonderment for the complexity of Science and the value of Academic study. I have no doubt, that Humans evolve, as I say this to you, we are evolving. Evolution, is BOTH a complex Theory and Fact. An enigma. It can’t be boxed as Master Darwin, presented with faultily evidence.
Evolution is complicated. If you call it the progression of Simple to Complex organisms, a Biologist will tell you that’s not exactly true. If you say it’s survival of the fittest, a Biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. If you call it a fact, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a theory. If you say it’s a theory, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a fact.
The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation of Evolution can only be as simple as God allows. AND God is far from Simple OR definable.
Just my thoughts
I see no conflict.
I have a wonderment for the complexity of Science and the value of Academic study. I have no doubt, that Humans evolve, as I say this to you, we are evolving. Evolution, is BOTH a complex Theory and Fact. An enigma. It can’t be boxed as Master Darwin, presented with faultily evidence.
Evolution is complicated. If you call it the progression of Simple to Complex organisms, a Biologist will tell you that’s not exactly true. If you say it’s survival of the fittest, a Biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. If you call it a fact, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a theory. If you say it’s a theory, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a fact.
The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation of Evolution can only be as simple as God allows. AND God is far from Simple OR definable.
Just my thoughts
B
buffalo
Guest
So then you have two easy questions to answer.
Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?
Is the constant Catholic and teaching of Adam and Eve being our first parents, Eve coming from Adam as well as bodily immortality and infused knowledge wrong (preternatural gifts)?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
“easy questions”The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation of Evolution can only be as simple as God allows. AND God is far from Simple OR definable.
Because we do not know the mind of God, we stand in Faith of the teachings He gave. God is ALL knowledgeable. We can presume He knew what He was creating… AND how.
A better question might be, Why did He create them?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
That is neither scriptural, nor part of the Church’s teaching. Augustine, for example, taught that organisms developed from pre-existing creation.
So does the Pope. It’s not Catholic teaching.
According to Genesis, the Earth and waters brought forth living things. But it doesn’t say anything about immediately creating each species.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes or no to the 2nd question.
The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation of Evolution can only be as simple as God allows. AND God is far from Simple OR definable.
Because we do not know the mind of God, we stand in Faith of the teachings He gave. God is ALL knowledgeable. We can presume He knew what He was creating… AND how.
A better question might be, Why did He create them?
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Well your disagreeing with two general councils of the Church!!! SHAME ON YOU!!! WHOEVER HEARS YOU HEAR ME WHOEVER REJECTS YOU REJECTS ME.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
“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 or shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself, or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.”
BY THE WAY THAT IS A CANON OF A GENERAL COUNCIL-====IT IS INFALLIBLE!!
BY THE WAY THAT IS A CANON OF A GENERAL COUNCIL-====IT IS INFALLIBLE!!
R
Rogerteder
Guest
YOU FORGOT # 3 EACH SPECIES WAS CREATED EX-NIHILO—that is what the council meant.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I’m sorry, I thought I had answered.
"Is the constant Catholic and teaching of Adam and Eve being our first parents, Eve coming from Adam as well as bodily immortality and infused knowledge wrong (preternatural gifts)?’
With this: “Because we do not know the mind of God, we stand in Faith of the teachings He gave.” God taught it to Moses…God gave them the name Adam and Eve. I imagine that, God would have described His act of creation, in terms that Moses could understand and reteach.
Jesus, didn’t un-teach it…neither has my Church…AND I’m sure there are much wiser than myself, who would have…had there been reason.
But your question, doesn’t beg for Doctrine, it begs for my personal opinion. Again “Because we do not know the mind of God, we stand in Faith of the teachings He gave.”
Have not, those teachings been passed down, intact?
R
rossum
Guest
My material part was not created from nothing, but involved a sperm and an egg from my parents. Whatever the council is talking about here, it is not talking about the standard forms of reproduction we observe in the world around us. Oak trees do not appear ex nihilo; they do grow from acorns.
I would be inclined to agree with the point that the words “whole substance” are to be read as referring to Thomist substance rather than to material atoms and molecules. Otherwise it would appear that the Council is talking nonsense - oak trees do not appear from nothing, they grow from acorns. No acorn, no oak tree.
There is no need to shout. It may well be infallible when interpreted correctly. Any text can be interpreted incorrectly and I am sure you are not saying that an incorrect interpretation is infallible.
You might also want to refer to the Latin original rather than to an English translation; it is inevitable that translating a text into a different language changes it.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches in multiple languages. There is no reason to believe mistranslations have survived to this point. Vatican I understood that God teaches man both through Scripture and knowledge revealed. Science plays a small role. Until Darwin’s book, most scientists declared God as the inspiration for their work and their helper. Today, God is denied by most leading scientists.
The Catholic Church does interpret scientific knowledge in light of Scripture, but is not hasty to draw conclusions, especially on a subject such as man’s true origin which is part supernatural. The fact that science, and scientists, are blind to this makes the Church’s role all the more important.
Peace,
Ed
The Catholic Church does interpret scientific knowledge in light of Scripture, but is not hasty to draw conclusions, especially on a subject such as man’s true origin which is part supernatural. The fact that science, and scientists, are blind to this makes the Church’s role all the more important.
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear reggieM,
Would you mind giving the Thomistic deffinition of substance and form with some examples? And the deffinitions of other possible words generally used with substance. Thank you.
Blessings for 2009
grannymh
R
Rogerteder
Guest
No you just dont want to accept it. Each species was immediatley created by God. Of course NOT EVER SINGLE SOLITARY MEMBER THROUHOUT ALL OF TIME WAS CREATED BY GOD IMMEDIATELY. IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS. IT IS DEVASTATING TO EVOLUTION!!1
R
rossum
Guest
That is not what the piece you quoted said: “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”. This says “all things”; since I myself form part of “all things” are you saying that I poofed into existence? Are you saying that oak trees poof into existence rather than growing from acorns? It says “all things”; why do you not follow the plain meaning of the words of the Council.
Then why did the Council chose to say “all things” rather than “all species”? You are adding the word “species” to what the Council said. As I have said, there is no need to shout by uning all caps; to continue to do so after being asked to stop could be considered rude.
It is just as devastating to ordinary reproduction and to oak trees growing from acorns. I do not think that you will get many to follow you in this. It is pretty clear that the Council is talking about Thomist substance
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I am interested to see the original Latin as it may shed light on the meaning of “substance” in the translation. In particular whether or not the Latin word translated as “substance” refers, or can refer, to Thomist substance and whether it could have other referents.
This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Dickens published ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ in the same year; perhaps that caused the change, rather than Darwin.
rossum
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
That is neither scriptural, nor part of the Church’s teaching. Augustine, for example, taught that organisms developed from pre-existing creation.
So does the Pope. It’s not Catholic teaching.
According to Genesis, the Earth and waters brought forth living things. But it doesn’t say anything about immediately creating each species.
That is neither scriptural, nor part of the Church’s teaching. Augustine, for example, taught that organisms developed from pre-existing creation.
So does the Pope. It’s not Catholic teaching.
According to Genesis, the Earth and waters brought forth living things. But it doesn’t say anything about immediately creating each species.
No, I’m disagreeing with your interpretation of it. I think the Pope, who acknowledges the fact of evolution, is probably more knowledgeable than you are regarding this point.
B
buffalo
Guest
…The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.”
Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: “What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.”
Monod does not dispute this. His thesis is that the entire ensemble of nature has arisen out of errors and dissonances. He cannot help but say himself that such a conception is in fact absurd. But, according to him, the scientific method demands that a question not be permitted to which the answer would have to be God. One can only say that a method of this sort is pathetic. God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence…" Pope Benedict XVI
R
Rogerteder
Guest
read my first quote and then read the context of Vatican I’s comments. it was right after Darwin published his work. It is plain to see to anyone who wants to. I also sight the Council of Cologne that was approved by Pius IX which quite clearly said evolution is wrong.
- Status