PureX
Well-known member
I was taught evolution in Catholic grade school.
toldailytopic: The Catholics: what did they get right, and what did they get wrong?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Evoken
New member
In truth, none of the 21 ecumenical councils ever defined as a dogma that Adam was formed "from the slime of the earth", nor did they proscribe a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. You seem to have the Catechism of Trent in mind (under the heading Production of Man) as it seems the statement is not found in the Council of Trent itself (you can view the council text here).
The simple fact that the statement "from the slime of the earth" is found in the Catechism of Trent does not means that it is a dogma nor does it makes it a dogma either. In fact, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "the individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess" (Introduction to the Catechism). Thus, given that The Church has never declared it as such, this statement is not a dogmatic doctrine which all Catholics must accept, as least in a literal sense.
This is the reason why Pope Pius XII was able to allow in Humani Generis for the possibility that the body of man was formed from pre-existing and living matter.
Evo
Absolutely. If the Church is what it claims to be then it would certainly be foolish to go against it. So maybe I should say that I can't take that step. :e4e:
Or maybe the question is did Christ claim to be what some say he claimed to be? :think:Sort of like the strings that are attached to the question "Is Jesus Christ Who He claims to be?" ...two questions which I realize you aren't quite settled on
Evo: A google search led to me to this page.
"1909 Biblical Commission Decree
Reinforced traditional Catholic doctrines on Creation.
Creation by God at the beginning of time
Special creation of Man; the formation of the first woman from the first man. The unity of the human race
Their initial state of justice, integrity and immortality
The testing of Adam and Eve by a positive precept
Their temptation and sin under the influence of the Devil
Their expulsion from Paradise
The promise of a Redeemer."
Also, as a Platonist, I have metaphysical problems with the theory of evolution. I can grant that a human soul can produce a human body. I can grant that the World Soul can ornament the cosmos. What I cannot admit is that a soul can produce a body which is different in kind from the soul. Proclus tells us that this is false.
"1909 Biblical Commission Decree
Reinforced traditional Catholic doctrines on Creation.
Creation by God at the beginning of time
Special creation of Man; the formation of the first woman from the first man. The unity of the human race
Their initial state of justice, integrity and immortality
The testing of Adam and Eve by a positive precept
Their temptation and sin under the influence of the Devil
Their expulsion from Paradise
The promise of a Redeemer."
Also, as a Platonist, I have metaphysical problems with the theory of evolution. I can grant that a human soul can produce a human body. I can grant that the World Soul can ornament the cosmos. What I cannot admit is that a soul can produce a body which is different in kind from the soul. Proclus tells us that this is false.
Evoken
New member
Yeah, but as you no doubt know "special creation of man" does not necessarily means "from the slime of the earth"
. Also the formation of the first woman from man is not necessarily opposed to evolution.The unity of the human race relates to the issue of monogenism vs polygenism. Pope Pius XII said that Catholics may not embrace polygenism (that Adam was a group of people instead of a single individual) but that they must hold to monogenism.
Well, I would think that this very much lands outside the scope of this thread, but perhaps you can elaborate?
Evo
Yeah, but as you no doubt know "special creation of man" does not necessarily means "from the slime of the earth"
1. I fail to see how we can read "special creation of man" other than "from the slime of the earth." If man merely was created from pre-existing organisms, than man wasn't created any more specially than any other living being.
2. The formation of the first woman from man is absolutely opposed to evolution. The "formation" in mind is the formation of woman from one of Adam's ribs. That's about as opposed to evolution as you can get.
In any case, note that "from the first man" precludes sexual reproduction or anything of the sort. Evidently, she couldn't have evolved.
Proclus tells us that every soul has a body which is specific to the soul. Since the soul is an animating/creating force, it must posit an image of itself. Just as God is to the world, so is the soul to the body. He further tells us (we see this mentioned further in Liber De Causis, an Arabic paraphrase of the Elements of Theology), the human soul "hangs upon," as it were, the bottom of the rational/intellectual/spiritual heirarchy. It's the mid point between the eternal substances and the temporal/destructible material substances.
Immortal in substance, it temporalizes in turning its rational/psychic energy towards material creation.
Given those two things (1. that each soul has a specific body and 2. that the human soul transcends the entirety of material/organic creation), I fail to see how we can reconcile this with evolution.
Evoken
New member
1. What makes man special in comparison to other living beings is that he is made in God's image, his rational soul which is produced out of nothing by God. As far as the body goes, man is very much like other animals.
2. That Eve was formed from Adam does not precludes the possibility that the body of Adam was formed from pre-existing and living matter.
This view seems to rest on the idea that the rational soul precedes in time the existence of the human body and that it subsequently "enters" this body to animate it. But such is not what The Church holds, as we believe that the soul is made out of nothing by God at the moment of conception. It isn't an issue, either, that the soul transcends the entirely of material/organic creation, because it is not said that the soul is produced by means of evolution, but that it is created immediately by God.
Evo
zippy2006
New member
:thumb:
Or maybe the question is did Christ claim to be what some say he claimed to be? :think:
I think the clearest answer to that question is found in Jewish studies and why the Jews are so torn on the issue (why they either reject Christ or accept Him as God). But keep praying and asking God to reveal the truth to you, whatever it is.
:e4e:
Cruciform
New member
Unfortunately, this is merely a Straw Man Fallacy on your part, since your statement completely misunderstands and misrepresents what the Church actually teaches, and what Catholics actually believe, about praying the Rosary. Here are a couple of relevant sources on the issue:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Aimiel
Well-known member
What un-believers believe about the Romanist church that keeps them away in droves is far more important that what one who's subject to the brainwashing of the pretend church believes about their paganism. It's this 'holier-than-thou' attitude that Christians have been fighting since long before Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door of the church. :nono:
Two points:
1. I disagree that his body is "very much like other animals." If you really do believe that the soul is the form of the body (whatever that's taken to mean), then the greater the dignity of the soul, then the greater the dignity of the body. Given that man has a rational soul, it is not fitting that man should have come into being in the same manner as brute beasts. If it is possible that God could have created man "ex limo terrae," then it is right for Him to have done so. But He could have. Therefore, He did.
2. I think that you're making a mistake. Does the term "man" only refer to the soul in this case? Note that the document isn't something about complex metaphysics or ontology. The document is about scripture. When we're talking about "the creation of man" in Scripture, we're talking about the creation of the composite. Therefore, both the soul and body must have been created as a special act of creation by God.
This is ridiculous. If Eve was formed from the rib of Adam (and did not evolve), then it's quite silly to say that Adam could not have been created directly. Furthermore, it would have offended directly against Adam's dignity, since he was the prior creation. If Eve was formed from Adam, then it's only fitting that Adam was formed directly by God "ex limo terrae," and not from a pre-existing creature.
I make no such claim. First and foremost, I say that the living body cannot exist without the influence of soul. I say that the soul is ontologically prior, not temporally. God creates both soul and body "at the same time," as it were, but I think it's still right to say that the soul has a causal relationship to the body (granted, secondary to God's act of creating).
Yes, but since the soul is different in kind from the soul that animates brute beasts, it's only fitting that the body likewise have a different origin. The greater the dignity of the soul, the greater the dignity of the body.
Cruciform
New member
...is invariably distorted, inaccurate, and habitually misrepresentative.
No more "brainwashing" than what you're doing right here in your own posted statements.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Brainwashed...years of indoctrination by those who believe that their preferred interpretation of the Bible is the only authority and make God secondary by sidelining Christ's own historic Church. It's obvious, but only to those not under its spell. (See how that works?)
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Evoken
New member
1. His body is very much like other animals as far as it's composition goes (blood, bones, cells, dna, etc). Yes, the human body is more noble and with a higher dignity than that of the animals by virtue of the higher dignity of it's rational soul, but that is not really the point at hand but rather its composition and the matter of which it is made. Also where is it being said that man came into being in the same manner as brute beasts? It is not said that evolution produced man as it produced the other animals, rather, what is being said is that God took some pre-existing and living matter which had come about by evolution and out of this living matter made man in a special manner.
2. Saying that man was made from pre-existing and living matter by no means precludes the fact that he was made by "a special act of creation by God".
But who said that Adam could not have been or indeed was not created directly? Given that in both instances it is being affirmed that Adam was created immediately by God, your issue boils down to: it is more fitting for God to create man from the slime of the earth than it is for him to create man from pre-existing and living matter.
Since in both instances man is created immediately by God, is endowed with a rational soul and his body was given an apt disposition for the operations of said soul, I really don't see much of an issue here as far as a conflict between evolution and Church teaching goes.
Evo
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Exactly. The history of the early church is amazing to read, and has powered many a conversion. Seeing the early church in liturgical action in the Mass, baptizing, confessing, ordaining, one can see there was an authoritative hierarchy, there was a sacramental and liturgical life. And there was infant baptism "...baptize first the children..." (Hippolytus: The Apostolic Tradition, A.D. 215)
I'm a cradle Catholic, so I have to admit that I never had to ponder that the way a convert would. In all things, however, His grace is sufficient for us.But on the other hand, I'm wary of taking the step that puts full authority and infallibility in their hands. I don't think I'd be a good Catholic because I don't think I could submit to the Church on certain things.
eameece
New member
Actually, being involved in music, I have; I even played for a catholic church though it was orthodox catholic, a small sect...
Who says the Pope lives in the presence of Christ and you and I don't? Why should I believe you?
The church has done some good things for people. But nothing in what Jesus said (Luke 10 or anywhere) sets up the catholic church as his only representative. The church is a choice; it is not a requirement in order to commune with God.
eameece
New member
Brainwashed by freedom of thought. Strange concept.
Cruciform
New member
Strange indeed---because there's no such thing. Non-Catholics derive their ideas and beliefs from sources outside of themselves (that is, traditions) every bit as much as Catholics do. It's just that Catholics are up-front and honest about the Church's Apostolic Tradition, whereas Protestants (non-Catholics) prefer to ignore and deny their own chosen doctrinal traditions. Thus, if Catholics are "brainwashed," then so too are non-Catholics.
Catholics enjoy just as much "freedom of thought" as non-Catholics.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+