Resurrexi Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) This should probably help to explain what views Catholics are free to hold (though I'm sure that many here have already read this): "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 faithful. 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. "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 either that 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." (Pope Pius XII, [i]Humani Generis[/i], 36-37) I personally feel that the body of the first man probably did come from pre-existent and living matter. Edited July 15, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 I can't imagine a better way for an ancient scribe to describe the Big Bang than to say, "and God said let there be light." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1920908' date='Jul 15 2009, 05:32 PM']I have Clovis and Cumberland point arrowheads older than 6000 years. The number 6000 was arrived at by a protestant minister named Mr Darby in Scotland in the 1800s, so its an invented tradition of men.[/quote] In the [i]Roman Martyrology[/i] entry for Christmas (read at Prime on Christmas Eve), it is stated that "In the 5199th year of the creation of the world, from the time when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, [. . .] Jesus Christ [. . .] was born in Bethlehem of Juda of the Virgin Mary [. . .]." I tend to think of this number as being more mystical than anything, but I could see why someone would interpret this as an historical number. Edited July 15, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 The Hexameron is a complex text, and one should not isolate out quotations in order to try and prove a modern idea, i.e., that creation took six twenty-four hour days. In fact, just after the cited text the author speaks of the eighth eternal day, which hardly fits with the idea that a day must be twenty-four hours long in every case. One must always bear in mind that the scriptural texts are polyvalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddington Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1921002' date='Jul 15 2009, 08:39 PM']The Hexameron is a complex text, and one should not isolate out quotations in order to try and prove a modern idea, i.e., that creation took six twenty-four hour days. In fact, just after the cited text the author speaks of the eighth eternal day, which hardly fits with the idea that a day must be twenty-four hours long in every case. One must always bear in mind that the scriptural texts are polyvalent.[/quote] I don't imagine that he said 24 hours when describing the eighth eternal day, but if you think that is still significant, then you're probably right. My point, which could've been proven much better was that Darby didn't invent the idea. He wasn't the first Protestant to believe it, and I don't think Protestants were the first to believe it. Actually, I think it was a normal belief for a long time. Edited July 15, 2009 by Paddington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I just think that you are reading something into the Hexameron that is not there, i.e., that St. Basil is claiming that the "days of creation" are twenty-four hours long. All he is saying is that the comments in scripture about "one day" rather than calling it the "first day" are establishing the concept of time for man. There is nothing in the text that would indicate that the "days of creation" are themselves twenty-four hours long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture... [and]... the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith." - Judgment of the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei, 1616 just sayin... cause some of the biblical folk on these sorta issues seem to sound a lot like that guy who was obviously wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 not creationism, but evolution this thread got me lookin at my archives here [quote]look at chapter 6 and five, especially chapter six. there's chromosomal proof too, for evolution. [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05[/url] links for things on traisitional fossils [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html[/url] [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html[/url] [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url] [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/[/url] [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05"]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html#ch05[/url] [url="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Exti...ans-62131.shtml"]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-10-Exti...ans-62131.shtml[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution[/url][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I believe in the literal genesis story, and also believe there is a lot in Scripture that is not meant to be literal, but for me this is not one of them. But then again, I also believe in geocentrism and disbelieve in any form of macro-evolution and probably believe in a 6000 year earth lifespan. So I'm not one to trust on scientific issues - I understand that and don't try to convince others on these things, its just what I personally believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasilius Konstantinos Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 For the OP: I dunno. I was not there. I have no clue what happened. Al I am certain of is that God was there in His uncreated glory and spoke into existence creation from His uncreated energies, the Breath of Life. Therefore I am a Creationist, as that meaning God made it. How he did it? By His voice. How long ago? I don't know, don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 How do you reconcile geocentrism with what science presents to us? I'm honestly curious; didn't think anybody believed that these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1921246' date='Jul 15 2009, 10:47 PM']How do you reconcile geocentrism with what science presents to us? I'm honestly curious; didn't think anybody believed that these days.[/quote] I'm not a scientist nor a sufficient apologist at this point. The points that convince me are far too elementary too convince anyone else I'm sure. So I won't even pretend like I can argue it. But I do believe, from the little science I do know, that at the least there is no more evidence for one form (geocentrism of heliocentrism) over the other. Any of the points that are used to prove heliocentrism can also be explained for geocentrism as far as I can see. If you want to bring up any of the simpler arguments in particular then I can present the argument (though it won't be my own original work) for the geocentrist position. Other than that, yes ppl still do believe it, though not more than a fraction of a percent. (edit: this is off-topic and needs its own thread) Edited July 16, 2009 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 You're right. Off topic. Sorry. As a 'parting shot' though, since I know I can't PM you, you should look into what scientists know about star orbits. Not just our own solar system. What convinced scientists, I believe, is when they started looking into how heliocentrism would explain the problems with charted star paths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 fair 'nough yeah I'm pretty sure all of this has been addressed on the pro-geo side, but I haven't studied it enough myself. maybe some day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1921304' date='Jul 15 2009, 11:16 PM']fair 'nough yeah I'm pretty sure all of this has been addressed on the pro-geo side, but I haven't studied it enough myself. maybe some day.[/quote] That's all anyone can ask; that if you have trouble with it, that you check the facts for yourself. 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