Evolution and the CCC
#11
(03-31-2019, 05:56 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(03-31-2019, 05:23 PM)Ginnyfree Wrote: Oh no!  "Cult-like?"  Are we guilty of Mariolatry yet? ......... 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?

Please for the sake of this dialog, please post the exact excerpts you are concerned with, then we can determine where your points lie.  Both Ott and the CCC are large books with many chapters.  It would be helpful for you to cite them directly and provide links if possible to on-line sources to cross check.  God bless.  Ginnyfree
Reply
#12
(03-31-2019, 05:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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.





And this means what?  Do you support the original posters position or not, that is the question.  If so, what are your own reasons for doing so?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#13
(03-31-2019, 06:09 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
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.
Nice!  Bravo.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#14
(03-31-2019, 07:55 PM)Ginnyfree Wrote:
(03-31-2019, 05:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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.

And this means what?  Do you support the original posters position or not, that is the question.  If so, what are your own reasons for doing so?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

I support the Church's position which says that the question of evolution at least in so far as the necessary limits are kept as described by Pius XII, is a question for natural sciences and philosophy, not a theological question.

Thus, so long as those limits are kept, one is free to use natural sciences and philosophy (the guardian of scientific principles) to defend or disprove evolutionary theories.

I take issue, however, with the Kolbe Center, Owen and other Biblicists who in the name of "Catholicism" condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their Protestant fundamentalism they call "the Catholic doctrine of creation". Since they were mentioned by StCamillus, I think it important to point out the problems with them and good theological rebuttals.

I don't find the six 24-hour day account to be literally tenable in the face of modern sciences, and since it is not dogma, I think it better to avoid putting up an obstacle for conversion by making Catholics look like nutjobs. I don't condemn anyone who hold it or prefers it, so long as they don't dogmatize it.

As regards my own personal theory, I don't really settle on any one other than that I don't think the 6,000 year history tenable without prompting worse questions about God and his nature, since it seems many things are very old. Is God then deceiving us? If so, how could he be "He who can neither deceive nor be deceived?" That prompts the dilemma, if we dogmatize the 24-hour day Genesis and 6,000 year old universe, of the science being so wrong that like Luther we should distrust our own reason and just "believe" or that God is deceiving us, and He becomes less believable then. I don't like those options, so I'll go with an older earth and universe, and a much longer span for life in general. Yes it causes us to have to be a bit more analogical and interpretive, but also doesn't call God's nature or our own into question.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Melkite
Reply
#15
(03-31-2019, 05:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: This is what happens when non-theologians and non-philosophers do theology. It ends up in Protestantism.

Love this.

This about sums up 99% of people who think they know what they're talking about when they don't. If it's heavy philosophy and theology I always stay out of it. Same goes for the sciences. It's not my arena, I know some basics and I know my limitations. I'll let the big boys talk about this kind of stuff. In our modern world too many people want to be what I'll call "amateur experts" on everything.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
[-] The following 2 users Like GangGreen's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#16
(03-31-2019, 08:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: And this means what?  Do you support the original posters position or not, that is the question.  If so, what are your own reasons for doing so?  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

I support the Church's position which says that the question of evolution at least in so far as the necessary limits are kept as described by Pius XII, is a question for natural sciences and philosophy, not a theological question........ I don't like those options, so I'll go with an older earth and universe, and a much longer span for life in general. Yes it causes us to have to be a bit more analogical and interpretive, but also doesn't call God's nature or our own into question.
[/quote]

Thank you for the honest answer. While I cannot agree with your compromises, I can respect that that is your position. God bless. Ginnyfree.
Reply
#17
(04-01-2019, 07:01 AM)Ginnyfree Wrote: Thank you for the honest answer.  While I cannot agree with your compromises, I can respect that that is your position.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Ginny,

None of what I have written is in any way a compromise. It is either part of, or permitted by the Catholic Faith and the traditional Magisterium of the Church (i.e. I could cite only orthodox Catholic pre-Vatican II documents to support my position, and could even limit myself to the pontificate of St Pius X and before to do so).
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)