I'm not sure what I believe about the exact mechanics of Creation, but I always assumed "day" was meant in more metaphorical terms as akin to "era". Going by days before the Sun was made seems a bit strange, and I read that the Hebrew of day is used to mean undefined periods of time in other parts of the Bible too, although examples escape me at the moment. 

What's your take on humani generis?  

I ask because I don't think you can have "evolution of the human body" and a young earth at the same time, and Pius XII did allow those with competence in science and theology to debate the evolution of the human body within certain parameters.  

Based on the Sacred Scriptures, one cannot hold that human beings have been around for more than 6,000+/- years.  That's absolutely clear from the Biblical chronologies.  It's heresy to hold otherwise, a implicit denial of the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant.  Micro-evolution?  Macro?

But, no, a THEISTIC evolution would not require millions of years for the human body to evolve ... even if you're speaking in Macro terms.  Despite what Bergoglio says, God can do anything.  So, no, there's no issue reconciling chronology with a limited "evolution of the human body" (whatever that means).

To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy.  Sorry, but Scripture clearly states that God formed Adam from "the clay of the earth", i.e., directly from matter ... and this precludes "God formed Adam from a monkey."  "Clay of the earth" can either be taken literally or as a quasi-scientific way to describe "raw matter" (and my personal opinion is the latter).   But in no way is it reconcilable with "ape".  Now, could human bodies, once so constituted by God, have evolved in a micro sense?  Of course.

Pius XII did a heck of a lot of damage.  No only in setting the table for evolution, but also for the floodgates of NFP, for letting Father Feeney get persecuted for upholding the Catholic dogma of EENS, for setting Bugnini up with his initial liturgical experimentations (John XXIII was even more conservative and kicked him out), and for appointing during his long reign nearly every single bishop that eventually brought us the glories of Vatican II.  St. Pius XII he was not.

Evolution is based on the atheistic premise that because the design is similar between the bodies of apes and human bodies, that the one must have come from the other.  How about they're similar because they have a common Designer?

Based on the Sacred Scriptures, one cannot hold that human beings have been around for more than 6,000+/- years.  That's absolutely clear from the Biblical chronologies.  It's heresy to hold otherwise, a implicit denial of the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant.  Micro-evolution?  Macro?

But, no, a THEISTIC evolution would not require millions of years for the human body to evolve ... even if you're speaking in Macro terms.  Despite what Bergoglio says, God can do anything.  So, no, there's no issue reconciling chronology with a limited "evolution of the human body" (whatever that means).

To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy.  Sorry, but Scripture clearly states that God formed Adam from "the clay of the earth", i.e., directly from matter ... and this precludes "God formed Adam from a monkey."  "Clay of the earth" can either be taken literally or as a quasi-scientific way to describe "raw matter" (and my personal opinion is the latter).   But in no way is it reconcilable with "ape".  Now, could human bodies, once so constituted by God, have evolved in a micro sense?  Of course.

Pius XII did a heck of a lot of damage.  No only in setting the table for evolution, but also for the floodgates of NFP, for letting Father Feeney get persecuted for upholding the Catholic dogma of EENS, for setting Bugnini up with his initial liturgical experimentations (John XXIII was even more conservative and kicked him out), and for appointing during his long reign nearly every single bishop that eventually brought us the glories of Vatican II.  St. Pius XII he was not.

Evolution is based on the atheistic premise that because the design is similar between the bodies of apes and human bodies, that the one must have come from the other.  How about they're similar because they have a common Designer?

"Ah, well, Ladislaus, you see, those chronologies weren't meant to be understood literally.  They had a moral meaning, but did not intend to convey historical, literal truth," blah, blah, blah.

Of all the deviations of the reoriented, semi-conciliar SSPX, the promotion of evolution is the worst:

Worse than saying the new Mass.

Worse than anything else they have done, because for all the rest, the SSPX has the appearance of weak, scrupulous, naive dupes.

But in the promotion of Fr. Robinson's book, they are on the attack: They are attacking the Church Fathers, traditional exegesis, removing the barriers to evolution, and in all of that, undermining the certitude of faith rightly held by the faithful, thereby themselves becoming a threat to the faith.

Here is the ruling of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1907 (or 1909?) prefaced by comments of the Kolbe Center, and subsequent commentary by Sungenis:

"Theistic evolutionists often claim that paragraph IV allows them leeway for their belief in biological macroevolution because there was not a strict consensus of the Fathers in relation to the Creation period consisting of six, twenty four hour days. Whilst the overwhelming majority of the Fathers did believe in the distinction of six, natural days a minority of Fathers believed that the six days represented a certain space of time, or hierarchy, of instantaneous Creation as revealed to the angels. Theistic evolutionists are mistaken in this regard because none of the Fathers believed that the Creation period was of a duration any longer than six, natural days. The sought for consensus lay in that respect and constitutes the traditional belief of the Church throughout the ages; a belief proclaimed by Popes, Doctors, Scholastics and the humblest peasant.

Likewise, paragraph VIII is also claimed by theistic evolutionists to allow leeway for an unorthodox belief in billion year ages for the Earth, an absolutely necessary requirement for the evolutionary concept within the natural sciences. It is clearly the consensus of the Fathers that Creation took no longer than six, natural days and so the claim is without Patristic foundation and therefore invalid. Furthermore, Kolbe Center Advisory Council member Robert Sungenis, Ph.D, tells us that:

The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis.

• Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
  Answer: In the negative.
• Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
  Answer: In the negative to both parts.
• In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
  Answer: In the negative.
• In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
  Answer: In the affirmative.
• Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
  Answer: In the negative.
• Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
  Answer: In the affirmative.
• As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of Creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
  Answer: In the negative.
• In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
  Answer: In the affirmative. [3]

Sungenis on IV and VIII:

"…the word “day” is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM (“days”), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means “many.” In other words, the translation says “long time” because it IS a long time. It is “many days” in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.

As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day…the second day…the third day…and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which “day” preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus’ Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).

The most conclusive evidence that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase “and there was evening and morning,” which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of “evening and morning” in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of “evening and morning” in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).

There are some cases in which the words “morning” or “evening” appear separately with the word “day,” some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages “evening and morning” are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.

If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (“let them be for days and for years”) or Genesis 3:14 (“dust shall you eat all the days of your life”). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.

As an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures. [4]
http://kolbecenter.org/faith-and-reason/

I'm pretty sure God didn't need the sun to keep track of the hours or days or evenings. That is for our benefit. Since we didn't exist yet, no harm-no foul in having light but no sun yet. Perhaps the sun would have interfered with those first steps of creation. God would have made all things in perfect order, right? So the sun was made directly before any living creature because we are the ones who need it for all of the reasons we do. Light, time-keeping, health, warmth to name a few.

God also didn't need millions of years. Modernists need millions or billions of years because they are also trying to prop up two other theories involving Godless dinosaur days and evolution. Why are Catholics even giving this the time of day? Trying to put Catholic ideas on a modernist theory is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Let's see... bible … ugly pig … bible … ugly pig. As Fr's review title aptly demonstrates, there is a lot of human respect going into choosing the ugly pig. Are we supposed to be worried that modernists are going to label us "Catholic Fundamentalists"? Because we believe the bible? It's absurd that any Catholic, especially traditionalist, should be concerned one bit about that. Talk about feeding into modernist machinations if we do.   

To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy.

Though I can certainly understand why Fr. Robinson, Fr. Laisney, and Francis the Clown  and many others like them would believe that they are descendants of apes.

Based on the Sacred Scriptures, one cannot hold that human beings have been around for more than 6,000+/- years.  That's absolutely clear from the Biblical chronologies.  It's heresy to hold otherwise, a implicit denial of the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

This isn't a subject I know much about, but I've heard some people argue that in Hebrew chronologies sometimes generations were skipped.  Is this inaccurate, or has this view been condemned somewhere?

Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant.  Micro-evolution?  Macro?

Pius XII Humani Generis: 

 36. 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.

TBH I have no particularly strong agenda here.  I've always been in the young earth camp and haven't seen anything to convince me that I need to change my mind.  I'm mostly concerned about this from an ecclesiastical perspective.  Most trads on this board seem to think that theistic evolution is heretical or close to it at least, but Pius XII seems to allow it to be debated within certain perameters.  And in this case, since he contrasts evolution of the human body with evolution of the soul, it does seem like he thinks the idea that God guided a process of biological evolution, and used biological evolution as the means by which Adam and Eve were brought about, is something that is allowed to be debated.  And the idea that that's what's being allowed is strengthened by the next paragraph, where he condemns the idea of polygenism (the idea that all humankind does not desecend from just two people) and says the sons of the Church *do not* have liberty to discuss that.  

But, no, a THEISTIC evolution would not require millions of years for the human body to evolve ... even if you're speaking in Macro terms.  Despite what Bergoglio says, God can do anything.  So, no, there's no issue reconciling chronology with a limited "evolution of the human body" (whatever that means).

Yeah my only concerns are what God actually does do, and what interpretive liberty the children of the Church have in speculating on how he did in fact do such things.  I certainly have no qualms about  the idea that God could have created the earth in six 24 hour days, or instantaneously.  My only concerns here relate to what is, not what could be.

To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy.  Sorry, but Scripture clearly states that God formed Adam from "the clay of the earth", i.e., directly from matter ... and this precludes "God formed Adam from a monkey."  "Clay of the earth" can either be taken literally or as a quasi-scientific way to describe "raw matter" (and my personal opinion is the latter).   But in no way is it reconcilable with "ape".  Now, could human bodies, once so constituted by God, have evolved in a micro sense?  Of course.

Honestly, this seems Protestant to me.  By which I mean, accusing people of heresy based on one's own interpretations of scripture, rather than based on official ecclesial pronouncements, seems Protestant to me.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I grew up Protestant and this was a big part of the reason why I left, heresy accusations are in essence postmodern, one person reads scripture and thinks it absolutely rules out someone else's viewpoint, so they slap the label "heresy" on it, even apart from any authoritative teaching of the Church.

TBH I'm not interested in arguing against your view of scripture here, because its very possible you're right.  But say the following conversation takes place.

You say what you said above.

Another Catholic replies with: "I actually don't think this passage is incompatible with the idea that God guided a process by which ape-like ancestors of man evolved into the current form of the human body and God specially created Adam's soul" and gives you a reason why.  His reason why does not deny the inerrancy of scripture, but rather gives you some kind of explanation for how the two can be reconciled.

I can see you still disagreeing, and saying that there's just no way to reconcile that.  I can see how you can hope that the Church would eventually condemn that alternate view as heresy.  But I don't see how you can condemn it as heresy, apart from the Church making a definite ruling on it.  What am I missing?

Pius XII did a heck of a lot of damage.  No only in setting the table for evolution, but also for the floodgates of NFP, for letting Father Feeney get persecuted for upholding the Catholic dogma of EENS, for setting Bugnini up with his initial liturgical experimentations (John XXIII was even more conservative and kicked him out), and for appointing during his long reign nearly every single bishop that eventually brought us the glories of Vatican II.  St. Pius XII he was not.

How do you reconcile all this with the point you regularly make against R + Rs that the magisterium can't be harmful to souls?  

Evolution is based on the atheistic premise that because the design is similar between the bodies of apes and human bodies, that the one must have come from the other.  How about they're similar because they have a common Designer?

I definitely grant that some evolutionists do indeed argue this way, and I think its plain wrong for the reason you stated.  I'm personally not informed enough on this topic to say whether there are better arguments.  But again, my concern here is over evolution's status in terms of to what extent it violates Catholic teaching, not so much whether its remotely sound.  Most modern day Catholics believe Young Earth Creationism is scientifically baseless, but not heretical.  Someone could easily believe the same thing about theistic evolution.

Is there one shred of evidence that man “evolved” from an ape, or a “humanoid”, or some other soulless beast? I want evidence. A fossil that has not been faked. Some kind of proof that such an evolution occurred is needed before you can twist Sacred Scripture.

And in case anyone is wondering, there is no evidence.

That's separate from what I'm asking though.