I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#41
(06-04-2019, 04:59 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
Great post. I have tried to convince myself of Catholicism [I would love if it were true Wrote:but things like what the CCC says on evolution just make me think it cannot be the biblical position and thus Catholicism cannot be infallible if it cant pass such an easy test. pid='1398421' dateline='1559666315']

As I said above Tolkien, no official rejection of infallibility is involved in the faith and science aspect of Catholicism so the Bride of Christ remains SPOTLESS. Some day, when the traditional faith is restored by heaven, the supernatural creation of all as depicted in Genesis will once again be restored.

Unfortunately anyone looking for traditional Catholicism will not find it anywhere today. That is the fault of men who since 1835 LOST THEIR FAITH in Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics.

There are some like the SSPX who have held on to the faith of Trent but alas like all the others human PRIDE has now set in. A Fr Robinson has written a book defending Big bang Catholicism and he is supported by the SSPX itself. In other words they, like Pope Pius XII, are taking natural Big Bang evolution as the truth and are about the task of trying to make atheistic science Catholic. Recently Pope Francis said God was not like a magician who could wave a wand and create the universe finished. That is where faith and science is in Rome now.

So Tolkien do not reject or doubt the Catholic faith because of the intellectual pride of those who think they know better than Moses. When 'scientific' origins replaced divine origins, the great apostasy began. You will no longer find the real traditional Catholic institution on Earth today. They have scattered these sheep and they remain only in small lots.
Reply
#42
(06-05-2019, 07:59 AM)cassini Wrote: Ah, another ad hominem ploy, now I am a blasphemer for pointing out the history of popes abandoning the traditional understanding of Genesis and its six day creation as revealed by Moses.

You wrote that Protestantism preserved the Truth, and the Church abandoned it. That's not an unjustified ad hominem attack, that's just blasphemy and I would say an heretical statement as well, since you implicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church by saying that heretics preserved the Truth while the Bride of Christ abandoned it.

The Church and only the Church is the one who gets to interpret what is the correct "understanding of Genesis". Not you. Not me.

Your fundamental problem is that you insist on your interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one. That's Protestantism. It is no wonder why you are ready to reject the indefectibility of the Church in order to keep your own interpretation.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, jovan66102
Reply
#43
Quote:Your fundamental problem is that you insist on your interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one. That's Protestantism. It is no wonder why you are ready to reject the indefectibility of the Church in order to keep your own interpretation.

Feeling the Pride this June...
[-] The following 2 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#44
(06-04-2019, 09:22 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-04-2019, 04:51 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Not true at all.  uniformitarianism is the unbiblical belief that todays processes have always happened at the same rate.   

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 
2 Peter 3 

Uniformity of nature is that all things behave the same way in the same circumstances. Besides, those assumptions used by the uniformtanist, not only is based on faith, but can by observation, be shown false.

The second letter of Peter has never been interpreted that way by the the Fathers, or the Magisterium. See here.

To suggest this passage condemns is to condemn St Augustine's interpretation of it which supports uniformitarianism. The relevant passage from that article :

Quote:Firstly, the Magisterium does not cite the passage in any major source of Catholic teaching. The Enchiridion Symbolorum, for instance, never references it. A survey of a dozen major Catholic Dogmatic Theology manuals from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries also proved fruitless. Thus, we have apparently no teaching of the Magisterium or Theologians regarding this verse which demand we accept one or the other reading.

Given the lack of Magisterial statements and theological guidance for interpreting the verse, we turn to the Fathers. Here, we do have some data, but a very small quantity. The Enchridion Patristicum shows no references to this passage in relation to doctrine, and other Patristic indices show only three Fathers addressing the passage at all. None assert that it condemns uniformitarianism, or the principles behind it.

The first, St Jerome, uses an accommodated sense to call Jovinanius one of the “scoffers,” but does not interpret the phrase in an applicable way. In his commentary he says nothing relating to a uniformitarianism.

Next, St Augustine cites the passage in his City of God. There he discusses the end of the world and the extent of its destruction in comparison with the Flood. He does not spend any words rejecting uniformitarianism (a notion with which he would have surely been familiar as it was taught by the Greek philosophers who asserted an eternal universe). Augustine states that the present world stands in the place of the antediluvian world, and the post-Apocalyptic world will be similar. He then asserts that, just as the nature of this world was not changed by the Flood, man’s “nature, however, shall notwithstanding continue, though in eternal punishments” after the Judgement.

The clear meaning is that as Noah had his own scoffers saying that there was no sign of a Flood coming, which destroyed all men, so it will be at the end that scoffers will find no sign of a Judgement coming, yet it will also destroy all men and the whole universe. He does not assert the rejection of uniformitarianism and instead speaks of nature not changing.

Next, Pope St Clement I in his Epistle to the Corinthians seems to paraphrase St Peter calling those men “foolish” who would not concern themselves with the coming judgement because “these things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us.” At the end of the same chapter, he speaks of the quickness with which the Lord will come.

St Augustine also takes this same idea in his other reference to 2 Pt 3:4 in his commentary on Psalm 44 writing: “Call to mind the generations before you; you will find that the making of Adam is but a thing of yesterday. So do we read that all things have gone on from the very beginning: they were therefore done quickly.” Thus, St Augustine affirms a uniformitarian reading of this passage. He accepts that things have gone on in the same way from the beginning. He then warns, “The day of Judgment also will be here quickly. Do thou anticipate its quick coming. It is to come quickly; do thou become converted yet more quickly.”

Further, as the article notes, the great scripture commentator, Cornelius a Lapide, in fact uses this passage to show that the stability of nature is actually an argument for God, and the "scoffer" is in fact blinded to this because he uses what should prove the order of the universe, and therefore God, to deny God.

It is only Protestants who needed to support their false "Flood Geology" who have re-interpreted this passage to condemn uniformatarianism. No Catholic author has ever done this, nor any Father, nor the Magisterium.


Of course I am not catholic and as your article says, the church has not taught dogma on the passage. But once more you are mistaking [and thus false reading some fathers] as rejecting uniformity of nature rather than Unitarianism. Unless you can get the proper definition, this discussion cannot move forward. 

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/cat...tarianism/

as for the church fathers and the global flood see here

https://creation.com/church-fathers-flood
Reply
#45
(06-05-2019, 01:05 PM)cassini Wrote:
(06-04-2019, 04:59 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote:
Great post. I have tried to convince myself of Catholicism [I would love if it were true Wrote:but things like what the CCC says on evolution just make me think it cannot be the biblical position and thus Catholicism cannot be infallible if it cant pass such an easy test. pid='1398421' dateline='1559666315']

As I said above Tolkien, no official rejection of infallibility is involved in the faith and science aspect of Catholicism so the Bride of Christ remains SPOTLESS. Some day, when the traditional faith is restored by heaven, the supernatural creation of all as depicted in Genesis will once again be restored.

Unfortunately anyone looking for traditional Catholicism will not find it anywhere today. That is the fault of men who since 1835 LOST THEIR FAITH in Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics.

There are some like the SSPX who have held on to the faith of Trent but alas like all the others human PRIDE has now set in. A Fr Robinson has written a book defending Big bang Catholicism and he is supported by the SSPX itself. In other words they, like Pope Pius XII, are taking natural Big Bang evolution as the truth and are about the task of trying to make atheistic science Catholic. Recently Pope Francis said God was not like a magician who could wave a wand and create the universe finished. That is where faith and science is in Rome now.

So Tolkien do not reject or doubt the Catholic faith because of the intellectual pride of those who think they know better than Moses. When 'scientific' origins replaced divine origins, the great apostasy began. You will no longer find the real traditional Catholic institution on Earth today. They have scattered these sheep and they remain only in small lots.


Why than does not the church take a strong stand for truth [creation] and combat the number one cause of Christians [regardless of denomination] leaving the church?


https://answersingenesis.org/answers/boo...eady-gone/
https://www.amazon.com/IndoctriNation-Sc...B006074Q3O



But that is kind of the point. Catholicism claims to be the church instituted by Christ, how can they teach the in the CCC evolution? that is not the church of the fathers.
Reply
#46
(06-05-2019, 09:29 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Of course I am not catholic and as your article says, the church has not taught dogma on the passage. But once more you are mistaking [and thus false reading some fathers] as rejecting uniformity of nature rather than Unitarianism. Unless you can get the proper definition, this discussion cannot move forward. 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Unitarianism".

If you mean Uniformitarianism—the scientific assumption that natural processes, as can be presently observed, are held to be uniform in the past and future, unless we have evidence to suggest that they have changed—then the passage from St Peter's letter actually supports the idea of a uniformity, and thus why the scoffer can scoff. If there were not such a uniformity, then his scoffing would be baseless. That uniformity is necessary for there to be any scientific study or reliable knowledge. If things do not always obey some fundamental law of nature then any true knowledge is impossible.

If the fundamental forces in nature can change over time in non-predictable ways, then there is no reason to think that while I have been writing this sentences they have not changed. There is no point to scientific study because the inductive method is not reliable, since even were I to get the same result twice or 1,000 times then there is no reason to think it will happen again that way, since the laws of natures are changable.

It is worth noting, as that article on Fr Robinson's site does, that no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism.

I'm curious why you cite the Flood, unless you are trying to argue the "flood geology" notion that the antediluvian world was so radically different that we have no way to go back beyond the Flood using natural processes. Is that why you bring it up?

If so, it's a bit of a circular argument, because to claim that it was so different before the Flood that science cannot penetrate that barrier is itself a bare assertion which of its very nature is impossible to demonstrate. That might be fine if we had then some revelation to suggest this was the case, but in fact, we don't, and Scripture is of no help here, because nowhere does Scripture claim this.

Add to it, the idea that nature was so destroyed that it was radically changed in its very essential properties is to say that God re-created the world, which undermines his own Wisdom. Anyone familiar with Lutheran or Calvinist theology will see how this idea clearly is just their heretical doctrine on Original Sin applied to the natural world, so no wonder it has its source in Protestantism.

I'm also curious what you mean by the CCC "teaching" evolution. The Church teaches doctrines which must be held by the faithful, but I am unfamiliar with where the CCC (which I'm not a fan of anyway, but side point...) says that Darwinian evolution is Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could cite the passage with which you have issues.
Reply
#47
(06-05-2019, 07:20 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-05-2019, 07:59 AM)cassini Wrote: Ah, another ad hominem ploy, now I am a blasphemer for pointing out the history of popes abandoning the traditional understanding of Genesis and its six day creation as revealed by Moses.

You wrote that Protestantism preserved the Truth, and the Church abandoned it. That's not an unjustified ad hominem attack, that's just blasphemy and I would say an heretical statement as well, since you implicitly deny the indefectibility of the Church by saying that heretics preserved the Truth while the Bride of Christ abandoned it.

The Church and only the Church is the one who gets to interpret what is the correct "understanding of Genesis". Not you. Not me.

Your fundamental problem is that you insist on your interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one. That's Protestantism. It is no wonder why you are ready to reject the indefectibility of the Church in order to keep your own interpretation.

What a pathetic argument you make Magister, trying to ignore recorded history with accusations of blasphemy and heresy.

How many times does one need to be told that when a pope defines an interpretation of Scripture, that is the Church teaching. Geocentrism was defined as such because it is revealed in Scripture and was held by all the Fathers of the Church.Anyone thereafter who denied this is guilty of heresy. Now heresy has different degrees, from Formal to material, but all heretics.

Tell me of one Catholic pope, cardinal or theologian after 1835 who abided by this 1616 decree. You denied it even after it was pointed oput to you, so it is you who like Galileo commits heresy. Tell me when any pope said the 1616 definition imposed on Catholicism was a joke as you put it?

There is also a de fide teaching on creation.

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.
 
‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) ‘This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which he bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.’--- Vatican I.

‘Substance,’ classic philosophy says, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming. Did the Lord not say His creating was finished on the 5th day?

Now only a chancer could try to argue that the above dogma can be made comply with Pope Pius XII's  Big Bang billions of years creation from atoms, an idea held as further heresy in the early years of the Church. Evolution never stops so when does God's creation by evolution finish?

It was the Protestants whose faith and science adherted to the Catholic dogmas above and all your so called blaspheming and hertetical accusations cannot change history.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cassini's post:
  • Tolkien RRJ
Reply
#48
(06-06-2019, 02:03 PM)cassini Wrote: How many times does one need to be told that when a pope defines an interpretation of Scripture, that is the Church teaching. Geocentrism was defined as such because it is revealed in Scripture and was held by all the Fathers of the Church.Anyone thereafter who denied this is guilty of heresy. Now heresy has different degrees, from Formal to material, but all heretics.

Tell me of one Catholic pope, cardinal or theologian after 1835 who abided by this 1616 decree. You denied it even after it was pointed oput to you, so it is you who like Galileo commits heresy. Tell me when any pope said the 1616 definition imposed on Catholicism was a joke as you put it?

In other words, according to you, in plain English, the Church defected in or around 1835 when She began to teach heresy.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#49
(06-06-2019, 02:03 PM)cassini Wrote: What a pathetic argument you make Magister, trying to ignore recorded history with accusations of blasphemy and heresy.

Whose throwing around ad hominems now?

(06-06-2019, 02:03 PM)cassini Wrote: Tell me of one Catholic pope, cardinal or theologian after 1835 who abided by this 1616 decree. You denied it even after it was pointed oput to you, so it is you who like Galileo commits heresy. Tell me when any pope said the 1616 definition imposed on Catholicism was a joke as you put it?

Already addressed that one in another thread, and a blatant red herring.

That decree is from the Congregation for the Index (not the Holy Office of which it was not a part at the time), was never approved in forma specifica by the Pope, and so while you keep claiming it is infallible, it is not a Papal decree, and when you have been asked to provide evidence of your claim that it is a Papal decree, you just go off like any other Protestant on side points and refuse to answer the question or provide the evidence.

On the 1616 Decree you have been clearly debunked. I take your failure to produce any evidence about that decree as approved in forma specifica on multiple occasions as an implicit admission of this from you.

As regards the Lateran Decree, seeing as it uses the word "simul" ("at once") and you assert a 6-day Creation is that not a contradiction? How can God produce it all "at once" and yet over 6 24-hour days. Is not then everyone who claims 6 days a heretic by your logic, since that was clearly an infallible decree?
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#50
Quote:It was the Protestants whose faith and science adherted to the Catholic dogmas above and all your so called blaspheming and hertetical accusations cannot change history.

Protestants have no faith. Zilch. Nada. Protestantism is a heresy, and a denial of the authority of the Church, and thereby a denial of the authority of Christ. To say that heretical sects who deny the true Faith have managed to preserve the Catholic faith while Catholics themselves have failed to do that is just unbelievably nonsensical.
[-] The following 3 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)