... on Evolution and Catholic Church

1) Creation vs. Evolution: I don't think Mother Angelica ever found Darwin's God · 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... on Evolution and Catholic Church

Video commented under:

The Doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Theory of Evolution
Ian Catholic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVWLwjpJxNs

[Not yet heard the video, bumpted in to a thread]

I, text about video:

Ajoutée le 8 juin 2013
[would in England probably show as "added June 8th 2013]

What is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on Adam and Eve?
Is it compatible with the Theory of Evolution?
Is Theistic Evolution the answer?
Who were Adam and Eve?
Listen to what Fr. Fehlner has to say.
This video shot over 15 year ago was lost and has just been found again.
The message is timeless.

Fr. Peter Damien Fehlner FI, STD is a professor of dogmatic theology. He taught in Seraphicum in Rome for many years; he wrote extensively on Franciscan and Marian themes. He was featured in Mother Angelica's EWTN several times.

[I found it while googling Mother Angelica Evolution, so far promising, she does not seem to have believed that evil stuff, at least I found no clear reference to her doing so, I will have to listen to an mp3 called Evolution And Other Things Host - Mother Angelica with guest Fr. Mitch Pacwa SJ]

II, thread:

in which I bump in quite some time after other ones.

Dan C.

I've yet to meet a friar or a priest that takes the Genesis account at face value. This friar is the first to insist the Roman church teaches a real Adam and Eve. Pope Francis, Benedict and John Paul II never, ever believed in a literal Adam and Eve.

[My emphasis - he is the first one, but he is one, he is there.]

Jamie Cole

+Dan C. Welcome to the infallible decree of the Council of Trent: If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

Dan C.

+Jamie Cole 'If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness'

This is talking about the fall. It mentions nothing about a literal 6 day creation or about God actually making man from dust and breathing into him life. What I have just mentioned is considered metaphor and not literal. The pope believes that the first man evolved from amoeba to ape like creature to man. Adam is the product of millions of years of evolution. A most reprehensible doctrine of devils.

'Welcome to the infallible decree of the Council of Trent'

Trent is not infallible, otherwise it would be part of canon scripture. Only the Word of God, the bible, is infallible. It is the only thing that the bible tells us 'stands forever' and it alone is a 'discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.'

[Bible is not just infallible - original and translations authorised by true Church being that - but inerrant at least in original and in at least one of the preserved versions on any given topic. Church is however only infallible on doctrine and morals, not inerrant in human opinion.]

Jamie Cole

+Dan C. Actually, for the Catholic Church, solemn decrees of ecumenical councils such as Trent are infallible. You make look it up. So, we know that Adam was the first man and that he dwelt in Paradise on earth. We also know about Eve. Here's Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." If Pope Francis believes Adam was the son of a wild beast, he has erred in his private judgment but he does not solemnly teach that the faithful must believe it. Popes may err unless they speak 'ex cathedra'- you may look up the doctrine of papal infallibility to clarify if needs be. By the way, the canon of the Bible is part of Catholic Tradition- the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected which books are divinely inspired. Again, I welcome you to look it up. 

Dan C.

+Jamie Cole "Actually, for the Catholic Church, solemn decrees of ecumenical councils such as Trent are infallible."

I believe you. What I'm trying to say is that that infallibility exists only in the mind of the Papacy. It exists no where in scripture.

"he does not solemnly teach that the faithful must believe it."
"Popes may err unless they speak 'ex cathedra'"

He has taught it, in fact he's gone on the record in front of all the world. Several have. The Pope does not have the luxury of erring in his judgment. Millions of people lean on every word he speaks.

'the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected which books are divinely inspired.'

Well, the Old testament had already been written and set apart. Christ referred to it many times as the 'scriptures'. As for the New Testament, the Apostles had already made it clear what was scripture. I won't deny that the Holy Spirit had a hand in helping the Roman church compile the books. God is zealous for His Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Dan C. Infallibility in Scripture:

Luke 10:16

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That said, I agree that with modern media, a real Pope does not have the luxury of erring in judgements millions will lean on (like "Pope Francis's" twitter account, which he somewhat "nepotistically" - or worse - indulgenced following).

Note, I have severe doubts on even possibility of Pius XII being Pope (his allocution in 1951 was worse than Humani Generis) and I am certain that Bergoglio is not Pope.

Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church works both ways.

Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church
Pope Francis was Pope in 2014
Pope Francis was infallible and could not make a false canonisation
Pope Francis canonised John Paul II
John Paul II is a saint;

OR

Wojtyla/John Paul II was not a canonisable saint after Assisi meetings 1986 and 1993.
The canonisation of John Paul II is false.
But Popes are infallible and cannot teach heresy to the Church
Therefore whoever was thought to be Pope and made that canonisation was not Pope
Pope Francis canonised John Paul II
Pope Francis is not Pope and you may call him Bergoglio.

I stick with the latter.

I was in doubt about "Pope Francis" from his "election" (in a sense a real election, but not a canonic election to real papacy, however that might be explained ... like with Pope Michael already being Pope and therefore conclave being schismatic, which is what I now think) up to that day in 2014.

I had even considered that BERGOGLIO adding up to 666 (in ASCII Code) MIGHT be a case of real Pope being prophetically named after his real adversary (like one Pius, VI or VII, was prophetically named "rapacious eagle" or aquila rapax in a prophecy of St Malachy, puublished well before his time, and which poointed to his being pope in the time of Napoleon Bonaparte who acted the part of a rapacious eagle). But since 2014 I am not in doubt, I consider him a proven non-Pope./HGL