Papal Contradiction? Evolution

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty sure that you are mistaken, actually. the pope doesnt have to say "this is an infallible doctinre' or "i am defining this" etc. he just has to be intentionally teaching the church. the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. 

eventhis doesnt say he has to say "this is infallible" or things in that regard.

 

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiffwhen he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universalChurch, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which theDivine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Churchirreformable."

I can find plenty of examples if you want me to. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

can you find it defined anywhere that it says that it has to be "this is inallible" or stuff like that?

[Nola Seminarian]

isn't this a contradiction of papal teaching?

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

"Fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con?

i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this?

In light of recent scientific developments, we can almost be 100% assured that evolution is true. As Christians we must hold the truth that there was an orginal set of first parents through which sin entered the world (we have no idea how that actually played out because, hey, there was no writing or even organized language back then.) we also must realize that we are to obey the current magisterium of the Church when it comes to things like this. I'm pretty sure JPII and BXVI have both talked about evolution favorably. So what one Pope said with a less complete base of scientific knowledge does not Trump what two more recent popes have said with more complete understandings of the process of evolution.

r more help on this, look Dr. Christopher Bagelow. He's a theology professor at Notre Dame Seminary (the Seminary in New Orleans, Not the university in South Bend) and is very well versed (in fact he wrote a wonder full textbook) in the subject of evolution and Catholicism Edited April 27, 2013 by Nola Seminarian

[T-fish]

The Pope just has to say stuff to keep people happy. 

In the end a Catholic isn't supposed to delve into science if it draws them away from the Source of Life, The Creator, aka God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

 

Who cares about evolution. Christians are supposed to repent and evolve (sin no more). That's all that matters.

[jim111]

This also part of that encyclical

"Wherefore, the magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the teaching of "evolution" be treated in accord with the present status of human disciplines and of theology, by investigations and disputations by learned men in both fields; insofar, of course, as the inquiry is concerned with the origin of the human body arising from already existing and living matter; and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, namely of those in favor and of those in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that all are ready to yield to the judgment of the Church, to which Christ has entrusted the duty of interpreting Sacred Scriptures authentically, and of preserving the dogmas of faith.*Yet some with daring boldness transgress this freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking." Humani Generes, Pius XII

 

[fides' Jack]

im pretty sure that you are mistaken, actually. the pope doesnt have to say "this is an infallible doctinre' or "i am defining this" etc. he just has to be intentionally teaching the church. the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. 

eventhis doesnt say he has to say "this is infallible" or things in that regard.

 

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiffwhen he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universalChurch, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which theDivine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Churchirreformable."

I can find plenty of examples if you want me to. 

 

This part of what you just quoted: " he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universalChurch."  How can you do that without basically saying, "Hey everyone, I'm saying something infallible"?

 

You can't provide plenty of examples.  The cases in history of infallible declarations are few (7 or 8 or something like that), and they are all well recognized.  I just found them on Wikipedia.

Edited May 16, 2013 by fides' Jack

[dairygirl4u2c]

that standard, though, is not the standard used by popes or the catholic church. that is, "i am declaring this infallibly" etc is not the standard. 

 

if the pope says to the church a teaching, that's all that matters, that it fulfills the criteria i mentioned above. the pope is always teaching the church in this way. perhaps i cant find many examples by your standard, but that's not the standard of the catholic church. 

 

even the quote you post if you read it literally doesn't say what you say... he just has to be teaching teh church etc. 

the burden is on you to show that your standard is the standard used, and i'm sure you won't find it. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

famous catholic apologist address similar arguments that you are making...
http://jimmyakin.com/2004/06/two_instances_o.html