Vatican I Condems Evolution?

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I have been given the following argument on another online forum, and I highly suspect it is wrong based on the commentary of recent Popes, but I'm not seeing an easy way to rebut it. It basically goes like this:

[quote name='DarthJacob1' timestamp='1317315519' post='1']
[url="http://setonmb.seton...9&start=270"]http://setonmb.seton...9&start=270[/url] How then do you reconcile Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I's decree that “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.” Notice the phrasing, "in its whole substance." The astute theologian Robert Sungenis noted that the First Vatican Council's decree came after only 11 years since Darwin's Origin of species. Also, the wording used is of a particular problem to evolutionists. "In its whole substance" obviously leads to the opposite, "partly" or "incomplete" substance. It chose the words "whole substance" because it wanted to contrast "partial substance." The Council did not state "everything in its part substance from nothing," but "in its whole substance." The punishment for not recognizing directly conflicts with those who say that Creation, be it young or old, does not matter. The Vatican Council states that "let them be anathema." Robert Sungenis elaborates, "Any cannon containing anathema is the highest dogmatic statement in the Catholic Church." Anathema means "to be banned, cursed, or excommunicated."
The provincial Council of Cologne in 1860 stated, "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that...those who...assert...man...emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith." Though the Council of Cologne is not infallible, it clearly illustrates the mentality of the 19th century clergy.
[url="http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2008/06/does-church-teach-spontaneous-creation.html"]http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.c ... ation.html[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/science/general/264-catholic-doctrine-of-creation-videos"]http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/s ... ion-videos[/url]
[/quote]

Edited February 26, 2012 by dells_of_bittersweet

[cappie]

I'm not sure about Vatican One but I do know that
Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, [i]Humani Generis[/i]. The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man. The Pope declared: "[size="3"] 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.[/size] " #36
In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. (He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations.) Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity. It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.” #5

[Aloysius]

"[b]spontaneous [/b]continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect" Divinely directed evolution is not spontaneous, it is anathema to a Catholic to view God as nothing but a clock-maker who set in place all the gears by which the human body would be formed, but then let it run its course. God created the human body and soul as it is in its whole substance out of nothing, even if the process started with creating the materials from nothing and then directing those materials in certain ways over the course of evolutionary history. the material did not pre-exist God, God created the material. The material did not spontaneously evolve (the statistical likelihood of that happening is minimal anyway), it was specifically directed by God to ultimately become a human being, body and soul.

I see no contradiction here with the anathema, in fact we are perfectly in line with the dogmatic statement here so long as we do not hold any matter as pre-existing God, or hold to any theory of evolution by which God is not intimately involved even in each miniscule step. it's just a question of how much time it took Him to "build" us, and what specific processes he used in doing so.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Darwins Theory is defined as "undirected mutation", so if we're talking undirected, there is no place for G-d to "guide it" as it were. I'm someone who doesn't believe in Darwin's Theory but I do believe in evolution of species. This is another example where the Catholic Church was on the opposite side of science.

[Laudate_Dominum]

What happens if I disagree?

[Aloysius]

with what, particularly? the interpretation I offered of Vatican I? I agree that if we view what I said as a mere technicality "saving" papal infallibility as it were, it would be a bit ridiculous; but the word spontaneous makes it clear that they are certainly arguing against a clockmaker God IMO, not as a technicality but as what they were very much intending to say. and the whole substance thing is a complete non-starter of an issue to me, because the definition of substance does not at all preclude a developing physical world--its whole substance was created from nothing, and then it was shaped. God created clay out of nothing, in its whole substance, then he molded the clay. indeed, the scriptural account itself would be at odds with what that statement said if it said what the OP thinks it says, for it describes man as having been formed from pre-existing matter.

this anathemas were directed at heretical views that were absolutely on the radar screen at the times they were written, and very specifically condemn the Deist clockmaker God fallacy and the idea of pre-existing matter or the idea that God did not create everything in its whole substance... I don't see a contradiction to the possibility of theistic evolution there.

In any event, I have been hoping to have another Adam and Eve and Creation convo with you one of these days, my friend, the last thread I had hoped it might happen in evolved into a protestant creationist thread. my contention is that we do not know what exactly the first two true humans were; your genetic dispute is centered around the idea that the first two true humans were Homo Sapiens, but I contend that we do not know that for certain... as we learn more and more daily about our biological history, the history of our soul becomes more and more unclear, but it is rooted in some prehistorical reality that I really think is very plausible. but there are many ways to speculate, I simultaneously posted some of my musings both in the Incest/Adam and Eve debate thread and your own Transmundane thread from many moons ago where I speculate about sibling species throughout time, hominid contemporaries of Adam and Eve with different kinds of souls and different kinds of eternal destinies; and I speculate about the souls of Neanderthals and Extraterrestrials in the same way.

anyway, so, what exactly are you disagreeing with? lol

[kujo]

Whenever I think of evolution, I can't help but think of the way that Poke[color=#282828]mon "evolve" into the different levels. Squirtle==>Wartortle==>Blastoise[/color]

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1331707509' post='2400509']
Whenever I think of evolution, I can't help but think of the way that Poke[color=#282828]mon "evolve" into the different levels. Squirtle==>Wartortle==>Blastoise[/color]
[/quote]

My Pokemon brings all the boyz to the yard
They're like, "you wanna trade cards?"

[kujo]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1331708298' post='2400511']
My Pokemon brings all the boyz to the yard
They're like, "you wanna trade cards?"
[/quote]

I boweth to your wit

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1331707509' post='2400509']
Whenever I think of evolution, I can't help but think of the way that Poke[color=#282828]mon "evolve" into the different levels. Squirtle==>Wartortle==>Blastoise[/color]
[/quote]
[img]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/069/7/f/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Squirtles_by_AceOfRiddles.png[/img]

[Winchester]

You can bet that any article about a papal document is stupid. Read the document, and read carefully.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1331700652' post='2400491']
What happens if I disagree?
[/quote]
You will be saddled with the honorific title of "astute theologian."

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh, Sorry Al, I was disagreeing with Riza. lol.

P.S. I haven't read this thread entirely yet so I'm just trolling a little. Read Riza's post and wondered what might happen if I disagree - which I do.

[Aloysius]

oh, lol. haha I still want to discuss Adam and Eve and evolution and Extraterrestrials one of these days, since I know you have a clearer grasp of the genetics than I do.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI0HFWhCaTY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI0HFWhCaTY[/url]

[StMichael]

Evolution. Somehow, "the theory of" part got dropped and it became a pseudo fact.

This is no different than Einstein's theory of relativity.

It is speculation. Not fact. Therefore, evolution cannot be accepted as fact.

Sadly, evolution as a way to undermine God, is used in government schools every day.