KnightofChrist Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1264031093' post='2041109'] Not quite.Illogical to heed those presently intrusted with the care of the Church... Yes... I see where this is going... Heed you, not the Church! I asked for an explicit and direct statement, you have failed to provide such... If the question was on the Immaculate Conception, I think we could provide an explicit and direct statement concerning it. But when it comes to the existence of an actual person named Adam, who was the first man, created outside of Evolution... Unless you mean that he was made through evolution, or maybe he was created according to the second story of creation found in Genesis 2... I wonder what this means, but I am sure you can answer for me, since we can't let the Church do that for us. That is "liberal". [/quote] Not true Sir, the passages from the Council of Trent are quite clear on Adam being an actual real person. You simply reject that [i]old recognition and interpretation[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Look, all I want to know is how one can believe in evolution and still somehow believe in Adam and Eve? Honestly, I can and do believe they are real. Just curious is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='Selah' date='20 January 2010 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1264032090' post='2041123'] Look, all I want to know is how one can believe in evolution and still somehow believe in Adam and Eve? Honestly, I can and do believe they are real. Just curious is all. [/quote] It is possible that we evolved from apes, but that we also all descended from one man and one woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1264031418' post='2041114'] Which you are more than willing to expound for us so we may believe you. No thank you, I will go with the Church. [/quote] Rather you go with the "present authority" which rejects the old traditional teachings of the Church on this matter. Quite a few in the "present authority" reject a vast amount of the Church's teaching on many moral and traditional teachings. Certain subjects such as Humanae Vitae and contraception, these persons also argue that encyclicals are not binding on the faithful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1264031452' post='2041115'] Not true Sir, the passages from the Council of Trent are quite clear on Adam being an actual real person. You simply reject that [i]old recognition and interpretation[/i].[/quote]Then from this supposed “direct and explicit” definitive definition of the faith, supposedly about Adam rather than the fall of man, tell me about Adam? Not from other sources or your opinion, but tell us about Adam from what you provided us, or that meets the criteria I requested for the sake of this discussion. Was this Adam a proto-human? Was this Adam white and handsome? Where did this Adam live and for how long? When did this Adam live? How many children did he have? Before we all go reaching for our Children’s Bibles, please keep in mind that we are not discussing the Bible, as much as we are examining if these passages from the Council of Trent provides a “direct and explicit” definitive definition of the faith regarding "Adam". If it doesn’t, then it is not quite relevant to this discussion, since one could just do a search for the word “Adam” in any Ecumenical Council of the Church and suggest it proves he existed the way "you" say he does. When I personally consider these questions and similar ones, I tend to think these definitions you provided earlier while binding are not concerning the actual existence of “Adam” as much as it’s concerning the fall of man. Edited January 21, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1264032231' post='2041126']Rather you go with the "present authority" which rejects the old traditional teachings of the Church on this matter. Quite a few in the "present authority" reject a vast amount of the Church's teaching on many moral and traditional teachings. Certain subjects such as Humanae Vitae and contraception, these persons also argue that encyclicals are not binding on the faithful.[/quote]When it comes to my faith, choosing between you and the Church, guess who is going to win? Just because it is old or new does not make it correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 January 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1264031067' post='2041108'] Can we please get a Church Scholar in here who can clear this up, please? I am quite confused... [/quote] Sorry, but KoC never really wants to hear what any of us have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommas_boy Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='CatherineM' date='20 January 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1264033004' post='2041131'] Sorry, but KoC never really wants to hear what any of us have to say. [/quote] True, but I certainly do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 January 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1264033066' post='2041132'] True, but I certainly do! [/quote]Seconded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1264032233' post='2041127'] Then from this supposed “direct and explicit” definitive definition of the faith, supposedly about Adam rather than the fall of man, tell me about Adam? Not from other sources or your opinion, but tell us about Adam from what you provided us, or that meets the criteria I requested for the sake of this discussion. Was this Adam a proto-human? Was this Adam white and handsome? Where did this Adam live and for how long? When did this Adam live? How many children did he have? Before we all go reaching for our Children’s Bibles, please keep in mind that we are not discussing the Bible, as much as we are examining if these passages from the Council of Trent provides a “direct and explicit” definitive definition of the faith. If it doesn’t, then it is not quite relevant to this discussion, since one could just do a search for the word “Adam” in any Ecumenical Council of the Church and suggest its binding. When I personally consider these questions and similar ones, I tend to think these definitions you provided earlier while binding are not concerning the actual existence of “Adam” as much as it’s concerning the fall of man. [/quote] The passages from the Council of Trent are indeed direct and to the point and quite explicit that the first man, whom we know as Adam existed, was created by God, and the cause of Original Sin. Reading those passages there is no way to logically deny that unless we first deny logic itself, but then that would be illogical. Clearly however the way in which the passages are stated the Fathers of the Council of Trent believed Adam to be real, that he actually existed just as much as they believed the New Adam to be real and in existence. Edited January 21, 2010 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1264032576' post='2041130'] When it comes to my faith, choosing between you and the Church, guess who is going to win? Just because it is old or new does not make it correct. [/quote] Adam and Eve were real if you don't believe that you don't believe the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not to copy Erin or anything but... @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1264033181' post='2041134']The passages from the Council of Trent are indeed direct and to the point and quite explicit that the first man, whom we know as Adam existed, was created by God, and the cause of Original Sin. Reading those passages there is no way to logically deny that unless we first deny logic itself, but then that would be illogical. Clearly however the way in which the passages are stated the Fathers of the Council of Trent believed Adam to be real, that he actually existed just as much as they believed the New Adam to be real and in existence.[/quote]I find this to be a really far stretching of the imagination, you have to keep in mind some of us are not as talented as you. But you are still no supplement for the authority of the Church who alone holds the right to interpret these statements. “[b]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, let him be anathema.[/b]” This is from the First Vatican Council, some fundamentalist Catholics attempt to use this passage to combat evolution. But when one takes a closer examination of this passage, one can find that it is easily reconcilable to evolution, since the Church has repeatedly told us that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism. Such as Catholic theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, writer of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma(1952), explains that it is to be understood that these condemnations are of the errors of modern materialism ([i]that matter is all there is[/i]), pantheism ([i]that God is all there is[/i]), and ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism ([i]where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere "matter" is evil not good[/i]) see page 79).[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1264033321' post='2041135']Adam and Eve were real if you don't believe that you don't believe the Church.[/quote]Because you said so... I will remember that. Edited January 21, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 [quote name='CatherineM' date='20 January 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1264033004' post='2041131'] Sorry, but KoC never really wants to hear what any of us have to say. [/quote] +JMJ+ i think we all would like to hear you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Catherine, I am interested as well. Please tell us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now