FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Evolution and the CCC - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Evolution and the CCC (/showthread.php?tid=84335)

Pages: 1 2


Evolution and the CCC - Tolkien RRJ - 03-31-2019

so reading the ccc and fundamentals of catholic dogma but Ludwig Ott it seems to me that the church says theistic evolution is not inconstant with geneses so long as the soul is created by God and Adam and Eve. Is this correct?


RE: Evolution and the CCC - St. Camillus - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 01:37 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: so reading the ccc and fundamentals of catholic dogma but Ludwig Ott it seems to me that the church says theistic evolution is not inconstant with geneses so long as the soul is created by God and Adam and Eve. Is this correct?

Though widely accepted by Catholics since the pontificate of Pius XII, the claim that theistic evolution is not inconsistent with Genesis is incorrect. There is a Catholic organization called the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation that has done a remarkable job of explaining why theistic evolution is incompatible with Catholic theology.

My favorite argument that the Kolbe Center has made against theistic evolution is their pointing out the implications of Our Lady of Lourdes referring to herself as “the Immaculate Conception”. The language used by Our Lady implies that her privilege of being immaculately conceived was singular and unique. Now if Eve was not literally created by God from the rib of Adam as an adult (as Scripture and Tradition clearly teach), but was instead conceived from some kind of sub-human primate, then Eve would also have been immaculately conceived because at this point there was no original sin. One of the antiphons of the Little Office of the BVM makes reference to Our Lady's role as the destroyer of heresies, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in all the world.” It is not irreverent to speculate that Our Lady said what she did at Lourdes precisely to destroy the heresy of evolution. In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

Leo XIII wrote the following in his encyclical Arcanum:
Quote: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 having 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.



RE: Evolution and the CCC - Melkite - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

This seems cult-like.  Heresies aren't destroyed by something as esoteric as apparitions, but something fully public like an ecumenical council.

For those who deny theistic evolution, how do you deny the evidence that exists for evolution of some sort taking place?  Do you argue that the scientists are lying about the evidence that they have?  Is it being misunderstood?  Or are they demonic creations meant to deceive us?


RE: Evolution and the CCC - Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 01:37 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: so reading the ccc and fundamentals of catholic dogma but Ludwig Ott it seems to me that the church says theistic evolution is not inconstant with geneses so long as the soul is created by God and Adam and Eve. Is this correct?

You're sure you found that in Ott and the CCC?
I ask because there are many different theories of evolution, not just one.  That being said, how can anyone approve to these theories if they themselves are still evolving?  
Here's some help keeping it within bounds if you really are tempted to dive into the sciences: Here are the nine things the Church teaches that we must believe about creation (Genesis 1-11): 1. We are required to believe the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time. 2. We are required to believe the special creation of man. 3. We are required to believe the formation of the first woman from man. 4. We are required to believe the unity of the human race. [Common parents] 5. We are required to believe the original happiness of our first parents. 6. We are required to believe the divine command placed upon man to prove his obedience. 7. We are required to believe his transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil by the serpent. 8. We are required to believe the fall of our first parents from the state of innocence. 9. We are required to believe the promise of a future redeemer. 
Also consider this: "Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis states it firmly: ... the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (cf. Rom 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, canon 1-4)” (HG 37)" (italics mine).
So, tossing those two items into this discussion, how do you fare with the hope of trying your hand at "reconciling" the myriad of theories of evolution with what we believe as Catholics and remaining in a state of grace while doing so, having not transgressed the boundaries set for you by our faith?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: Evolution and the CCC - Ginnyfree - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 03:19 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

This seems cult-like.  Heresies aren't destroyed by something as esoteric as apparitions, but something fully public like an ecumenical council.


For those who deny theistic evolution, how do you deny the evidence that exists for evolution of some sort taking place?  Do you argue that the scientists are lying about the evidence that they have?  Is it being misunderstood?  Or are they demonic creations meant to deceive us?

Oh no!  "Cult-like?"  Are we guilty of Mariolatry yet?  I really do not like the word "apparitions" when used in conjunction with the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.  She is real.  She is human.  She has been thru death and yet lives!  She was assumed body and soul into Heaven.  This is a historical event.  When others who are still confined to this life have witnessed her coming to us as the veil between this world and Heaven is rent asunder so as to have that glimpse of her beyond our world, they aren't merely seeing a ghost, an apparition, but a real flesh and blood person who has passed beyond our world and yet is permitted by her Son to visit with certain chosen individuals.  
As you can probably find out rather easily from any solid history book of any of the Councils of the Church, just because a Council made pronouncements, doesn't mean the entire Church obeyed.  Not all that occurs at a Council concerns errors or heresies either.  Many matters are brought up and some resolved and some left unresolved for another day.  But history shows that there are those who after a Council has made certain decrees, they increase their defiance and break into open revolt even.  Some become so incited they return and murder their opponents or use their government's leaders they've seduced to persecute those who try to obey the dictates of said Council.  Alrightie then.  Nuff said.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.


RE: Evolution and the CCC - Tolkien RRJ - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote:
(03-31-2019, 01:37 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: so reading the ccc and fundamentals of catholic dogma but Ludwig Ott it seems to me that the church says theistic evolution is not inconstant with geneses so long as the soul is created by God and Adam and Eve. Is this correct?

Though widely accepted by Catholics since the pontificate of Pius XII, the claim that theistic evolution is not inconsistent with Genesis is incorrect. There is a Catholic organization called the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation that has done a remarkable job of explaining why theistic evolution is incompatible with Catholic theology.

My favorite argument that the Kolbe Center has made against theistic evolution is their pointing out the implications of Our Lady of Lourdes referring to herself as “the Immaculate Conception”. The language used by Our Lady implies that her privilege of being immaculately conceived was singular and unique. Now if Eve was not literally created by God from the rib of Adam as an adult (as Scripture and Tradition clearly teach), but was instead conceived from some kind of sub-human primate, then Eve would also have been immaculately conceived because at this point there was no original sin. One of the antiphons of the Little Office of the BVM makes reference to Our Lady's role as the destroyer of heresies, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in all the world.” It is not irreverent to speculate that Our Lady said what she did at Lourdes precisely to destroy the heresy of evolution. In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

Leo XIII wrote the following in his encyclical Arcanum:
Quote: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 having 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.



I would agree but isent the CCC and Ott official?


RE: Evolution and the CCC - Melkite - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 05:23 PM)Ginnyfree Wrote: Oh no!  "Cult-like?"  Are we guilty of Mariolatry yet?  I really do not like the word "apparitions" when used in conjunction with the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven.  She is real.  She is human.  She has been thru death and yet lives!  She was assumed body and soul into Heaven.  This is a historical event.  When others who are still confined to this life have witnessed her coming to us as the veil between this world and Heaven is rent asunder so as to have that glimpse of her beyond our world, they aren't merely seeing a ghost, an apparition, but a real flesh and blood person who has passed beyond our world and yet is permitted by her Son to visit with certain chosen individuals.  
As you can probably find out rather easily from any solid history book of any of the Councils of the Church, just because a Council made pronouncements, doesn't mean the entire Church obeyed.  Not all that occurs at a Council concerns errors or heresies either.  Many matters are brought up and some resolved and some left unresolved for another day.  But history shows that there are those who after a Council has made certain decrees, they increase their defiance and break into open revolt even.  Some become so incited they return and murder their opponents or use their government's leaders they've seduced to persecute those who try to obey the dictates of said Council.  Alrightie then.  Nuff said.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Aww, Angeltime, you're back!

Also, you didn't answer any of my questions. What do you make of the evidence in favor of some kind of evolution? All made up? All a demonic illusion? Just misinterpreted?


RE: Evolution and the CCC - MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Though widely accepted by Catholics since the pontificate of Pius XII, the claim that theistic evolution is not inconsistent with Genesis is incorrect. There is a Catholic organization called the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation that has done a remarkable job of explaining why theistic evolution is incompatible with Catholic theology.

They Kolbe Center is peddling Protestant fundamentalism as if it were Catholic theology.

Hugh Owen, it's founder, has absolutely zero background in theology or philosophy. He has a degree in education. Nevertheless he goes about lecturing on theology and philosophy. As a result he frequently misquotes or misrepresents Scripture, St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church to make his points.

For instance he often quotes 2 Pt 3.3ff as proof that St Peter condemned uniformitarianism (the scientific and philsophical doctrine that physical and natural causes act in a consistent and predictable way). Were this true no scientific study or knowledge would be possible. Absolutely no Catholic scholar, theologian, Pope or Father of the Church has ever interpreted those verses this way, and in fact, Fathers and scholar interpret them as supporting this notion of uniformitarianism.

The center, and Owen, hold as a Catholic dogma a literal six 24-hour day Creation. When challenged at his talks he admits that the Church allows other theological positions, but asserts that they are false and this is because the Church has been weak on this position. He claims that the Fathers and Magisterium support him, but this is easily falsifiable.

The stance on evolution is actually his starting point. He rejects macroevolution outright. This is an acceptable position and shared even by Progressive Creationists.

His reason, as he explains for his rejection, however is not philosophical or theological, but anecdotal. His father was a Eugenicist and atheist and founder of the International Planned Parenthood federation. He clearly sees the connection between Communism, Globalism and the propaganda which pushes an evolutionary theory not only of biology, but also of society, thus abortion, euthanasia, etc. Since this position is atheistic, he sees any possible influence of evolutionary thinking as totally incompatible with Catholic thought, and unfortunately will reinterpret Scripture, the Father, and Magisterium to fit his ideas, and not take them at face value. His "theology" on this level is clearly an emotional reaction to this backstory, since it is mentioned in each talk.

He does get that the Communistic agenda is pushing the evolution narrative as a counter-religious belief to Christian doctrine. The problem is that he starts from the premise that this means that the evolution narrative or anything that sounds like it is inherently this : opposed to Christian doctrine. He assumes the very premise he wishes to demonstrate.

Thus he rejects out of hand anything except what Protestant "Creation Science" would demand (even though this same science makes open mockery of a Catholic understanding of the nature of God and the universe). A literal six 24-hour day Creation is the only possibly correct reading of Genesis for Owen. It is dogma.

The problem is that the Church has never demanded this Protestant reading of Scripture, and the several Father fully reject this interpretation. Of course, his usual retort will be that none support a billions-year-old universe. This is true, but again, it is a red herring and straw man. The very fact that several Fathers reject a 168-hour reading means that another reading is possible, so long as it does not contradict other dogma. That reading could be an instantaneous Creation (favored by like like of St Augustine and some others), or it could be a longer period (favored by St Cyprian, St Bede and some others).

Since there is no unanimity on the interpretation, it cannot bind the faithful, and so to argue that the Fathers say this, even if many do, but notable exceptions do not, is disingenuous. This is why as modern geological sciences developed the Church, through the Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed wide berth in interpreting Genesis and the Hexameron, while insisting that it is real history. "Day" could be a long period, or it could be a day, or it could be a mere logical division.

But Owen and the Kolbe center will reject this, and insist that only they (and Protestants) have the right doctrine.

Oddly enough St Maximilian Kolbe, the center's patron, himself held a non-fundamentalist position.

Own and the Kolbe Center also demands as dogma a global flood, which again, is not the common Catholic teaching and has not been for a long time. They will reject

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: My favorite argument that the Kolbe Center has made against theistic evolution is their pointing out the implications of Our Lady of Lourdes referring to herself as “the Immaculate Conception”. The language used by Our Lady implies that her privilege of being immaculately conceived was singular and unique. Now if Eve was not literally created by God from the rib of Adam as an adult (as Scripture and Tradition clearly teach), but was instead conceived from some kind of sub-human primate, then Eve would also have been immaculately conceived because at this point there was no original sin. One of the antiphons of the Little Office of the BVM makes reference to Our Lady's role as the destroyer of heresies, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in all the world.” It is not irreverent to speculate that Our Lady said what she did at Lourdes precisely to destroy the heresy of evolution. In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.

Another red herring/straw man argument, and bad theology. Sounds great, but argues against a point no one has made, and is certainly not the only reading, nor the Church's reading of the assertion in a private revelation of the apparition of the Immaculate Conception.

Even most theistic evolutionists, following Pius XII in Humani Generis, would assert some special intervention in the production of the bodies of our first parents, and certainly of Eve. Progressive evolutionists certainly would assert this for both Adam and Eve. So the argument argues against something no one has asserted as a way of arguing against things which Owen and the Kolbe Center cannot argue against.

(03-31-2019, 03:01 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: Leo XIII wrote the following in his encyclical Arcanum:
Quote: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 having 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.

And a problem here is if this is dogmatically insisting on a 168-hour Creation (which it is not), then it disagrees with the Fathers, Pontifical Biblical Comission (which Leo XIII set up) and Pius XII among countless others.

If it is dogmatically insisting that Eve's body was miraculous produced from Adams (which it is) then no one who professes the Catholic Faith doubts this.

It is yet another straw man.

This is what happens when non-theologians and non-philosophers do theology. It ends up in Protestantism.


RE: Evolution and the CCC - MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019

(03-31-2019, 01:37 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: so reading the ccc and fundamentals of catholic dogma but Ludwig Ott it seems to me that the church says theistic evolution is not inconstant with geneses so long as the soul is created by God and Adam and Eve. Is this correct?

The Church's last clear official theological statement on evolution is Pius XII's Humani Generis, which is mostly an encyclical against Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Neo-Modernism, both of which employ Darwinian evolutionary theories in theology. The former would hold that man as a society is evolving into Christ. The later would assert with Modernism that since religion comes from an evolving process of understanding, so dogmas evolve and change, too.

Both are obviously false, but there's the false step of then asserting not that their premises are wrong but going too far and asserting based on this condemnation that that the foundations of their theology (namely evolution) is necessarily false.

There are good arguments on a scientific and biological level against macroevolution. There are good theologican and philosophical limits to what evolution if true could do. And thus instead of condemning evolution as such (which would have been this "going too far") Pius XII left the question of evolution to natural sciences and philosophy, while setting out the theological limits.


Quote:35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.



RE: Evolution and the CCC - MagisterMusicae - 03-31-2019

Regarding this Biblicism of the Kolbe Center, Fr Paul Robinson has a series of articles on the issues mentioned above. I'd highly recommend them, even if you don't hold the Progressive Creationism of Fr Robinson (I don't find myself in any camp, for instance, so don't unambiguously support his position). These point out the main problems with the Fundamentalist perspective :

Part 1 : The reinterpretations of Catholic Biblicism : Introduction

Part 2 : The Reinterpretations of Catholic Biblicism: Church Magisterium

Part 3 : The Reinterpretations of Catholic Biblicism: History

Part 4 : The Reinterpretations of Catholic Biblicism: Science & Conclusion

Also of interest might be :

Is Biblicism Catholic?

The Father's understanding of Genesis 1

Instantaneous Creation of Adam and Eve a Problem?

Catholicism and Creationism

This is also a whole site dedicated to "Thomstic Evolution". Again, while I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, there is no way that these Dominicans who are producing this could be accused of Modernism.