Catholic doctrine of Creation ?

[twinc]

Yeah, Augustinian Instant Creation for the win!!! [/
What on Earth are you on about? Could you possibly try to be more coherent with your writing?

what on earth are you on about - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

what on earth are you on about - twinc

What you said doesn't make any sense. It lacks coherence. And what do you mean by Galileo getting it wrong?

 

[twinc]

Two popes before Benedict also espoused evolution as the most plausible explanation for the origin of the species - but not the human soul; let us be clear about that.

Note that the Holy See has not taken one side or the other on the issue. It is legitimate in the eyes of the bishops and the Church's magisterium to believe evolution, creationism, even instantaneous creation (at least, that was an "off the cuff" comment of Augustine of Hippo's, once).

not at all, at all at all - what is required is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as expounded by Scriptures and the Church not individual opinions, conjectures, conclusions etc ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseum - to in anyway connect God with Origins evolution that did not and could not happen is to have an idiot as GOD without also having a monkey God - Catholics as stated are adrift and divided as here also apparent - Catholics come home now - twinc

 

[twinc]

What you said doesn't make any sense. It lacks coherence. And what do you mean by Galileo getting it wrong?

already stated what I mean - please read carefully and prayerfully - twinc

 

[twinc]

I do not have issue with an old earth--it does not affect my faith. It does not affect the veracity of Genesis since Genesis is a book hard to understand, with symbols and historical fact all rolled into one.

And I do believe, Humani Generis does tell us to consult the disciplines of science, and true science seeks only truth--empirical truth--and this shows an old earth---what I cannot understand is why it is such an issue for some Christians that maybe, just maybe, God created the universe as science describes?

Literal interpretations of scripture, without allegorical interpretation where needed, leave one in a stuck position which can turn scripture into a science book, which it is not intended to be---the purpose of Genesis was to tell us God created the world, he created Adam and Eve our first parents in a perfect state and they sinned.

And, Ratzinger, is one heck of a theologian, while it is an opinion, it definitely is not an uniformed opinion, but a very high expert in theology

So, ill take what he has to say pretty seriously

Scriptures[The Bible] is certainly not a science book but where it does touch on science, history etc it is totally inerrant authored by the greatest scientist and historian that some refuse to acknowledge - btw science and history books change but with the Bible the anchor holds - Catholics come home now - twinc

 

[twinc]

Indeed. Ratzinger has written quite a bit of this in various places and his reasons seem to be as much theological as because the overall consensus of science points that way, not because of any single bit of evidence.

The idea that his opinion on the matter is "off the cuff" is simply laughable.

wait till we get to the last laugh - meanwhile Catholic/Christian come home and really know the actual Catholic doctrine of Creation for according to the Catechism at CCC282 it is of major importance - Catholics are adrift and divided - come home now - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

already stated what I mean - please read carefully and prayerfully - twinc

That answers nothing.

wait till we get to the last laugh - meanwhile Catholic/Christian come home and really know the actual Catholic doctrine of Creation for according to the Catechism at CCC282 it is of major importance - Catholics are adrift and divided - come home now - twinc

Section 282 speaks nothing dogmatically in regards to the specific method of creation. It allows for Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution. Obviously it doesn't allow for anything silly like Atheistic Evolution. What it does do, however, is that it re-affirms the importance of Creation so one cannot say something like "Genesis is just a story". Sure, it's a story, but a very important one since it speaks of the beginning of the Human race and everything.

 

[twinc]

Two popes before Benedict also espoused evolution as the most plausible explanation for the origin of the species - but not the human soul; let us be clear about that.

Note that the Holy See has not taken one side or the other on the issue. It is legitimate in the eyes of the bishops and the Church's magisterium to believe evolution, creationism, even instantaneous creation (at least, that was an "off the cuff" comment of Augustine of Hippo's, once).[/QUOTE

let us really be clear - so I repeat - it is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics to accept and/or teach Origins evolution as fact - Catholics come home now - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

let us really be clear - so I repeat - it is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics to accept and/or teach Origins evolution as fact - Catholics come home now - twinc

The theory of Evolution? Sources please.

 

[twinc]

That answers nothing.



Section 282 speaks nothing dogmatically in regards to the specific method of creation. It allows for Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution. Obviously it doesn't allow for anything silly like Atheistic Evolution. What it does do, however, is that it re-affirms the importance of Creation so one cannot say something like "Genesis is just a story". Sure, it's a story, but a very important one since it speaks of the beginning of the Human race and everything.

so who failed to teach you and others exactly how important it is to see CCC327, which refers you to Lateran IV, which refers you to Vatican I - none of this allows for Theistic Evolution and in fact forbids making an idiot or monkey out of God for Catholics - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

so who failed to teach you and others exactly how important it is to see CCC327, which refers you to Lateran VI, which refers you to Vatican I - none of this allows for Theistic Evolution and in fact forbids making an idiot or monkey out of God for Catholics - twinc

I don't know how you managed to interpret the findings of the Sixth Lateran Council as to being as explicit in that regards. It just re-affirms the importance of creation. It doesn't say anything in regards to the method.

 

[twinc]

I don't know how you managed to interpret the findings of the Sixth Lateran Council as to being as explicit in that regards. It just re-affirms the importance of creation. It doesn't say anything in regards to the method.

CCC327 says 'simul et ex nihilo' and Lateran IV, Council of Cologne, Vatican I/Canon I explain and clarify that it is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics to accept and/or teach Origins as fact or that God is an idiot or monkey - why is it that I quote Lateran IV and so does CCC327 but you quote Lateran VI - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

CCC327 says 'simul et ex nihilo' and Lateran IV, Council of Cologne, Vatican I/Canon I explain and clarify that it is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics to accept and/or teach Origins as fact or that God is an idiot or monkey - why is it that I quote Lateran IV and so does CCC327 but you quote Lateran VI - twinc

I miss-quoted you in the sense that you said Lateran VI not IV. Regardless, not it does not say anything in regards to the theory and the theory of evolution (at least understood in the context of theistic) does not say God is an idiot nor a monkey. None of this deny the creation out of nothing. Seriously, where are you getting this from?

 

[twinc]

I miss-quoted you in the sense that you said Lateran VI not IV. Regardless, not it does not say anything in regards to the theory and the theory of evolution (at least understood in the context of theistic) does not say God is an idiot nor a monkey. None of this deny the creation out of nothing. Seriously, where are you getting this from?

you can get it clearer in an extended article as 'The Catholic doctrine of creation' at The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation or via google at [response to Ronald L Conte Jr - twinc

 

[WisdomTree]

you can get it clearer in an extended article at The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation or even at www.responsetoRonaldConteJr - twinc

The Kolbe Center are not authoritive when it comes to doctrines and dogmas. Sure, they are allowed to have views since that is what the Holy See allows so long as one does not cross over into heresy, schism, or apostosy, but it is just that, opinions. What you are doing at the moment is teaching these things as if they are dogmas which only an Ecumenical Council with precedence in Holy Scripture and Sacred Traditions can do (or rarely, Papal ex cathedra declaration).

There is nothing wrong with believing what you hold to is true while anything contrary is wrong, it is only logical. It becomes a problem when you think that you have the authority to push this view with the guise that the Holy Catholic Church has sanctioned such a move when it is clear that it has not since even the previous Holy Fathers themselves have had the opinion contrary to your statements as well as teaching that differing opinions are permissible so long as it is within the boundaries of the Church.

 

[ChesterKhan]

not at all, at all at all - what is required is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as expounded by Scriptures and the Church not individual opinions, conjectures, conclusions etc ad infinitum, ad absurdum, ad nauseum - to in anyway connect God with Origins evolution that did not and could not happen is to have an idiot as GOD without also having a monkey God - Catholics as stated are adrift and divided as here also apparent - Catholics come home now - twinc

And the apparent paradox of free will and God's omnipotence was silenced by the Magisterium, when the Molinists and the Thomists were fighting with each other. They were not allowed to anathematise each other, and the Church has left it at that.

The Church has also not defined when the Second Coming will be, because she knows that not even Christ knew that. Perhaps our origins will remain just as mysterious.

For even if evolution were true, remember: it does not explain how God created nature. For nature came from nothing, evolution or not. And to come from nothing, it must have come from God.

 

[hsilgne]

Church dogma states the following...

We all descend from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were created immortal.

Eve was created FROM Adam.

Original sin caused mankind to become subject to death.

To date, I have not been presented with any argument, whether from a Pope, a theologian, a layman, a scientist, etc, that can reconcile any theory of evolution to these declared Truths.

FTR... I am a relatively recent convert to a YEC worldview. I, like many others(including many on this forum), once refused to entertain the idea of YEC – and also believed the idea to be ludicrous. Now, however, I believe the religion of evolution to be the greatest deception ever concocted by the evil one.


Sources... Humani Generis / Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae” from Pope St. Pius X / The Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis of 1909

 

[twinc]

The Kolbe Center are not authoritive when it comes to doctrines and dogmas. Sure, they are allowed to have views since that is what the Holy See allows so long as one does not cross over into heresy, schism, or apostosy, but it is just that, opinions. What you are doing at the moment is teaching these things as if they are dogmas which only an Ecumenical Council with precedence in Holy Scripture and Sacred Traditions can do (or rarely, Papal ex cathedra declaration).

There is nothing wrong with believing what you hold to is true while anything contrary is wrong, it is only logical. It becomes a problem when you think that you have the authority to push this view with the guise that the Holy Catholic Church has sanctioned such a move when it is clear that it has not since even the previous Holy Fathers themselves have had the opinion contrary to your statements as well as teaching that differing opinions are permissible so long as it is within the boundaries of the Church.

what a lot of nonsense and determination to justify the acceptance of way out, weird and wacky teaching of devilish demons and human demons and reject the teaching of Scriptures and the Catechism - Vatican I was an ecumenical council with Canon I stating that to accept or teach Origins evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - btw the Kolbe center and some few others are not proclaiming dogmas of their own making but that of the Church and smoke screens and red herrings are being used to hide the true teaching from Catholics already misguided, misled, divided and adrift - Catholics come home now - twinc

 

[ChesterKhan]

Church dogma states the following...

We all descend from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were created immortal.

Eve was created FROM Adam.

Original sin caused mankind to become subject to death.

To date, I have not been presented with any argument, whether from a Pope, a theologian, a layman, a scientist, etc, that can reconcile any theory of evolution to these declared Truths.

FTR... I am a relatively recent convert to a YEC worldview. I, like many others(including many on this forum), once refused to entertain the idea of YEC – and also believed the idea to be ludicrous. Now, however, I believe the religion of evolution to be the greatest deception ever concocted by the evil one.


Sources... Humani Generis / Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae” from Pope St. Pius X / The Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis of 1909

An opinion to which you are most entitled. I used to be a Literal Creationist, when I was a teenager. I admit I did not fully explore the meaning of YEC, and I still haven't. I also admit that evolution poses many problems (while also having many interesting applications) to the Christian faith. It gives a whole new spin to creating man out of the dust, for example, while at the same time a whole new question as to how he got his soul.

I don't think it necessarily opposes reason or faith to believe all the things you have just mentioned and scientific evolution. It does leave the question of how it came about, but evolution by no means excludes supernatural intervention in any number of ways to do the things the Church teaches occurred.

For instance, there is an idea some people kick around, that the soul, not the bodies, of Adam and Eve were what made "men in [God's] own image" - i.e, that homo sapiens may have corporeally evolved as a species, but God infused Adam and Eve with souls. And they were the fathers of the human race as God Himself had imagined us. And from them and them alone came real men, fully, with body and soul.

This makes sense to me, for God is a spirit, not a body. Only the Son is human, but there is no reason to imply that the body came before the spirit. Just the opposite.

Or let's say Eve being made from Adam. I can buy that, along with evolution. What is to stop God from acting out Genesis 2, even if He has made laws that say women beget men? He can break those laws, if He wishes. And if He gave man the soul first, it may well be even man's flesh was changed by this, so no ordinary human would do, but only one made like God. Sort of the reverse of the conception of Our Lord.

The only way one could conclusively exclude evolution or creation would be if he did not believe in miracles, or the intervention of the Divine. Now, who do you think will win on that argument?

Is it any wonder creationists often come across as blind in their faith? They are blind, but it's because they lack faith. If they had faith, evolution would not pose a problem. God can work beyond the laws He sets up. Or do you think the wine and bread stay wine and bread, and God does not physically change them?

 

[WisdomTree]

what a lot of nonsense and determination to justify the acceptance of way out, weird and wacky teaching of devilish demons and human demons and reject the teaching of Scriptures and the Catechism - Vatican I was an ecumenical council with Canon I stating that to accept or teach Origins evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics - btw the Kolbe center and some few others are not proclaiming dogmas of their own making but that of the Church and smoke screens and red herrings are being used to hide the true teaching from Catholics already misguided, misled, divided and adrift - Catholics come home now - twinc

Show me where I have rejected the Sacred Scripture or the findings of the First Vatican Council. I have read the canons and no where does it mention anything to do with the theory of evolution. If I am to assume what you are referring, the Canon I Section IV does not in any way or form condemn nor condone anything to do with science. If you read it in context with all the sections within that Canon it is a clear rejection of any Gnostic interpretation of the material world (as well as the opposite) which modernism has brought. The Holy See has never made a dogmatic nor even a indoctrinating statement in regards to this, especially since prior to these events, even Catholic priests and monks contributed towards these works as a way of showing the methodologies of God's creation.

I have never said that the Kolbe Center made dogmatic definitions (since they can't) and have said that they have every right to make their argument within their understanding. You on the other hand have accused those who do not conform to YOUR beliefs (not the canons of the Church) of essentially being of the devil.

If the theory of evolution was considered to be of the enemy by the Sacred Magisterium, then there would have been clear teachings and guidelines nearly two hundred years ago with the Supreme Pontiffs between then and now condemning it and warning his flock against it. Yet, there has been none. Are you saying that all the Popes who didn't openly condemn the theory have been wrong and as such deceived the entire flock which Christ had entrusted to Saint Peter? And seriously, what do you mean by "Origins evolution"? I have never heard of that term before.