Author Topic: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology (Read 527 times)

cassini · « **on:** November 19, 2019, 11:59:27 AM »

Having posted on the 'if evolution were true' thread I did not want the subject of this thread lost at the bottom of that one, so important it is in demonstrating the damage done to the Catholic Faith since 1835 and more so since the Big Bang evolutionist Pope Pius XIII opened up the faith to the scientific fraud he believed in.

In 1981, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (b.1927) later elected Pope Benedict XVI (2005-15 retired), attempted a creation catechesis for adults in four Lenten homilies in the cathedral of Munich, and later published in a book called In the Beginning.[1] The reason for this subject matter, he wrote, was that the creation account is noticeably and nearly completely absent from Catholic catechesis, preaching and even theology, confirming of course the effects and success of the Galilean reformation he wasn’t even aware of. What he wanted to do was try to show that the Genesis account of creation in the first book of Scripture can be interpreted in harmony with modern ‘science,’ a task begun by Galileo and taken on by countless authors in a never ending attempt to marry Catholic faith with pseudo-science.[2] Taking Newton and Einstein’s cosmology for granted, and totally ignoring the absurdity of all evolutionary theories that we have touched on earlier, the Cardinal, by way of his ‘newspeak,’ with its ambiguous euphemistic language, tries to get us to believe that the ‘poetry’ of Genesis can be read and understood to agree with the exact same theories that ‘science’ asserts. These same scientific assertions remember, are also known to have shown millions that there is no God, no need for a God.

Beginning by quoting Genesis 1:1-19, the Cardinal wrote:

‘Yet these words give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them. Do these words then, count for anything? In fact, a theologian said not so long ago that creation has now become an unreal concept. If one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of mutation and selection. Are these words true?... Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?... Thus far it has become clear that the biblical creation narratives represent another way of speaking about reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biology.’ --- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In the Beginning.

The days recalled in Genesis were traditionally understood as literal 24-hour days or St Augustine’s all must have been created together instantly and revealed or explained over a metaphorical six days in Genesis. When churchmen, caught up in the Galilean reformation, stretched a Genesis day to a ‘space of time,’ one that accommodated the Big Bang theory of course, a day could become a billion years. Modernist Creation ‘theology,’ as we see in these talks is now based on ‘unaided reason,’ an idea dismissed as error by St Thomas Aquinas. Before the Galilean reformation the Church had always taught origins were supernatural and preternatural, created ex nihilo by the omnipotence of God, and so involved no natural mechanisms. But even this teaching is now challenged in different ways:

‘One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says the Bible is not a natural science book, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it….. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun, moon and the stars were established.’ ----- In the Beginning, p.5.

Once again, Cardinal Baronius’s quip (rather the Protestant Rheticus’s and the heretic Giordano Bruno’s) is used to promote their ‘faith and science’ theology. This assertion, that the Bible is not intended to tell us anything ‘scientific’ about the order of the universe, as we said many times before, was invented to accommodate the heretical heliocentric reading of the Scriptures. In this book, Cardinal Ratzinger tries to convince readers that whereas the Bible cannot tell us anything about natural science, natural science can be used to reinterpret the theology. ‘One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose,’ Ratzinger writes. Now the Catholic dogma of creation teaches that it was a supernatural act of God, not a process of natural evolution as the above paragraph asserts, and that is why ‘Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared.’ Genesis however, does tell us the sun was created out of nothing to cause day and night and seasons which turn out to be a scientific fact, yes? Before we move on from Ratzinger’s ‘natural beginning’ of the world, let us now remind ourselves what Pope Benedict XV said in his 1920 encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus:

‘Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff’s own words show that this is a rash and false deduction.’

[1] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In The beginning, CFI Bath Press, UK.

[2] For example, Fr Paul Robinson SSPX; The Realistic Guide to religion and Science, Gracewing Publishing, 2018.

cassini · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:02:55 PM »

MODERN CREATION 'THEOLOGY' CONTINUED:

As regards the Bible not ‘wishing to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun, moon and the stars were established,’ well isn’t that exactly what the words of Genesis do tell us?

‘And God said: let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the Earth. And it was done. And the Earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yielded seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that was good. And the evening and morning were the third day… (Genesis 1:11-13)

Cardinal Ratzinger continued:

‘I believe that this [my natural creation] view is correct, but it is not enough. For when we are told that we have to distinguish between the images themselves and what those images mean, then we can ask in turn: Why wasn’t that said earlier? Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. And so the suspicion grows that ultimately perhaps this way of viewing things is only a trick of the church and of theologians who have run out of solutions but do not want to admit it, and now they are looking for something to hide behind. And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last four hundred years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece. People have, it is true, always found tricks as a way of getting out of difficulties. But there is an almost ineluctable fear that we will gradually end up in emptiness and that the time will come when there will be nothing left to defend and hide behind, that the whole landscape of Scripture and of the faith will be overrun by a kind of “reason” that will no longer be able to take any of this seriously.’ - In the B.

Wow, here above Cardinal Ratzinger summarises our very own synthesis. He admits ‘four hundred years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece,’ finding tricks as ‘a way of getting out of difficulties.’

There followed his opinions of Genesis 2:4-9, the creation of man, taken from the earth. ‘We are told,’ the Cardinal wrote, ‘you are not God, you did not make yourself and you do not rule the universe, you are limited. You are a being destined for death, as are all things living; you are only earth.’

Now the Council of Trent had long decreed: ‘Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassable, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God.’ Adam then, according to Trent, was not created for death, that came only after Original Sin. But Cardinal Ratzinger prefers his Darwinian version:

‘All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom?... But let us look a little closer, because here too, the progress of thought in the last two decades help us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution of faith and reason…. It [19^th century science] perceived that all things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming.’ --- In the Beginning,

‘One might say’ or does one say? Such words were followed by more of Cardinal Ratzinger’s favourite method in his comments regarding faith and science, that is, quoting others in such a manner that leaves the reader wonder if it is also his belief or not. It means in the event of the comment being challenged he or his apologists can say I was just quoting someone else (in this case Jacques Monod and in another, as we will see with regard to Galileo, Paul Feyerabend) but it was not his personal belief. What the Cardinal tries to do in these homilies is promote his doctrine of theistic-evolution; try to rescue the credibility of Genesis using the ‘scientific proofs’ that have long dismissed Genesis as ‘poetry,’ an exercise that gives as much credibility to the evolution by which atheists have long dismissed the need for a God as Creator.

cassini · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:12:59 PM »

MODERN CREATION 'THEOLOGY' CONTINUED

Original Sin

Having quoted Genesis 3:1-12, 17-19, 23-24; Cardinal Ratzinger continues his homilies to give us a post evolution understanding ‘On the Subject of Sin.’

‘The account [in Genesis] tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal and since God does not run a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly

There followed in this homily a thesis on sin being something to do with relationships. ‘Sin is a rejection of rationality because it wants to make the human being a god,’ if you know what he meant. Nor did he mention the Ten Commandments, where all the possible sins of man are addressed and forbidden. What is never uttered is the word Baptism or the need for it. Nor is there any reference to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception wherein the Mother of God, Mary, was conceived in God’s love and without Original Sin. And remember, later this man was elected as Pope, Vicar of Christ on Earth.

‘Feyerabend portrayed Galileo as making full use of rhetoric, propaganda, and various epistemological tricks in order to support the heliocentric position.’[1]

Seven years later, on Jan. 17th 2008, the Galileo case returned to haunt Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. On that day 67 professors of physics – in their commitment to what they called ‘lay science’ - objected to him going to the University of La Sapienza in Rome to deliver a speech. It seems the Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, quoted the philosopher Paul Feyerabend’s comment from his 1975 book Against Method:

‘The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.’

This incident, which became headline news around the world, caused Benedict XVI to cancel his visit to the University. Within days, Vatican officials were insisting the Pope held no such view, that he only quoted Feyerabend’s opinion but did not support it himself. It seems this time Joseph Ratzinger’s ‘trick’ of quoting others rather than stating his own opinion backfired. The following Sunday however, 200,000 pilgrims converged on St Peter’s Square in Rome to support their ‘misquoted’ pope, whether he was right or wrong.

[1] Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

LeDeg · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2019, 12:29:57 PM »

Didn't Pius XII teach theistic evolution (or at least allowed it to be held) in Humani Generis?

cassini · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2019, 02:22:13 PM »

Quote from: LeDeg on November 19, 2019, 12:29:57 PM

Didn't Pius XII teach theistic evolution (or at least allowed it to be held) in Humani Generis?

Yes he did, but in a way that some could say he didn't. Proof of this came in 1951 when he told the PAS he believed in the Big Bang and the evolution that followed.

You have to understand that the modern 'science' rot entered the womb of the Church when in 1820 and 1835 Pope Pius VII and Gregory XV accepted a heliocentric interpretation of Scripture that rejected the geocentric revelation held by all the Fathers and was defined as dogma in 1616. From that moment on popes were afraid to condemn any other scientific theory to avoid another Galileo case. This gave 'scientific theories' licence to change traditional understandings. As we saw above with Ratzinger this 1820 U-turn led even popes into a modernism that eliminated the supernatural and totally undermined ther theology and metaphysics of Genesis.

The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a low point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an inferred endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the all the Church Fathers; theories that denied the biblical age of 6-7,000 years for the universe; theories that denied the global Flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope’s speech:

Pope Pius XII and his Big Bang
‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’ (a long condemned Pythagorean heresy -- see A.A. Martinez's book Burned Alive)

48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the Earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”

50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’

Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of secular theory. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang and the condemned heliocentrism.

Banezian · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2019, 03:50:21 PM »

Quote from: LeDeg on November 19, 2019, 12:29:57 PM

Didn't Pius XII teach theistic evolution (or at least allowed it to be held) in Humani Generis?

Yes

LeDeg · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2019, 05:49:09 PM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 19, 2019, 03:50:21 PM

Yes

Is that not a major problem?

StLouisIX · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2019, 06:14:12 PM »

Humani Generis permits a discussion between the pros and cons of evolution, but not its acceptance by the faithful.

“Bishops must teach that all of Genesis 1-11 is true history (HG, 38-39); that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches, not just in matters of faith and morals (HG, 24); that the metaphysical principles of traditional Catholic philosophy must be maintained in the examination of the evolutionary hypothesis (HG, 29)”

http://kolbecenter.org/destroying-the-faith-through-evolution-a-response-to-stacy-trasancos-article-evangelizing-through-evolution/

The Church Fathers unanimously agreed that Genesis is true history and that the world is under 10,000 years old. Anything that the Fathers unanimously agreed on must be accepted and believed by Catholics, as Pope Leo XIII wrote in Providentissimus Deus that “...it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

http://kolbecenter.org/adam-and-eve-writings-mystical-saints-doctors-church/

cassini · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2019, 07:51:14 AM »

Quote from: Banezian on November 19, 2019, 03:50:21 PM

Yes

Right then Banezian, the ultimate metaphysical question for evolutionist Catholics. How do you explain the Genesis's and Church's teaching that the body of Eve came wholly from the body of Adam in an evolutionary scenario?

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2019, 03:59:32 PM »

What is scary that Banezian claim that most sspx seminarians are taught to believe in evolution.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2019, 11:45:52 PM »

To be clear, I'm not an evolutionist.

The view that Genesis "is not true history" is not allowed, and Humani Generis rules it out.

But as far as evolution of the human body and old earth go (if held in such a way that doesn't cause dismissing Genesis as history) I don't see how the unanimous consent of the fathers clearly rules that out if Augustine held to instant creation. Like isn't that just another way of thinking its not six literal days?

Also I'll note Humani Generis doesn't *teach* evolution. It allows it to be discussed, within specific perameters,

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2019, 12:03:11 AM »

If anyone reads ALL of Humani Generis, it's extremely clear His Holiness Pope Pius XII is extremely cautious about the false theory of evolution. Why? He calls it an opinion Communists and other materialists gladly adhere to, something leading to atheism, agnosticism monism, pantheism etc. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such 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."

This is far from being a ringing endorsement of the heathen theory of evolution by any means. Evolution is a false and disastrous theory.

From a Creation Science Text Book about a 100 years ago: "The teaching of evolution promotes atheism and is a tool in the hands of communistic agitators in some of our great schools. This presents a clarion call to reach young people with the truth before they become irretrievably ensnared ... So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we are happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and teachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or infidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great college or university.

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers. Will Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that give an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges teach today the world will believe tomorrow.

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its only hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. In Russia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) party unless he is an atheist. It will be a sorry world when "scientific" atheism wins, under the name of evolution.

"No one has a moral right to believe what is false, much less to teach it, under the specious plea of freedom of thought. It is the privilege and duty of parents to send their children to institutions that are safe ... Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?" http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

Author Topic: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology (Read 527 times)

cassini

The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

cassini

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

cassini

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

LeDeg

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

cassini

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

Banezian

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

LeDeg

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

StLouisIX

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

cassini

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

ByzCat3000

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology

Nishant Xavier

Re: The consequences of evolution on Genesis and Catholic theology