Own Answer, Same Question

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Still on Catholic Apologetics' space on Quora.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

It so happens, a man who fully accepts evolution in the modern version is arguably either not a Catholic or an ill instructed such. “Ill instructed” is no excuse on the level of bishops.

This means, as Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio were all at episcopal status before their elections, whether validly bishops or not, the one alternative is, they were not Catholic, but heretic.

As such they were all ineligible. Therefore none of them was validly elected as pope.

For some reasons why full acceptance of evolution is heresy or even apostasy, see here:

Creation vs. Evolution: What Extension to Old Age do Old Agers Permit Themselves?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-extension-to-old-age-do-old-agers.html

I

Frank Jones

Sun

Someone made a comment in one of the answers which’s roughly stated the Catholic Church says some of the bible is myth. Perhaps this article you attached does not cover the myth part. So, everything being made in 6 days is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

I wrote this too:

Creation vs. Evolution: Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-st-jerome-calling-genesis-myth-and.html

No, the Catholic Church (traditionally - I don’t think the present USCB or Vatican represent it) does not say so.

II

Melissa Bronder

Sun

Do you subscribe* to a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

I think I s-u-b-scribe to it.

I think you a-scribe qualities to objects.

I ascribe truth to the Bible literally interpreted and I subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But as I am a foreigner, you just might be right … but if you have Oxford English Dictionary, do take a check, please!

Melissa Bronder

Sun

I've edited the diction.

However, why do you subscribe to such a literal interpretation? Do you see theological interpretation as needing to be separate from scientific inquiry of the universe? What are your views of science and the scientific method?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

I appreciate the correction.

I believe there are scienceS and scientific methodS in the plural.

I also believe evolutionism is mistreating both of them.**

It can be added, theologia (and that includes the literal sense of Genesis) regina scientiarum. It’s not for theology to adapt beyond its traditional front lines.

* She had used "ascribe" first, whether by inadvertence or bc she wanted to check my English. I keep my ensuing words, not because I doubt her English skills, but because some have doubted mine.

** Both groups, that is.