Catholic Doctrine of Creation ?

Home Forums All Things Catholic Catholic Doctrine of Creation ?

This topic contains 7 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  twinc 2 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #2132


    so lets get this right – imho the Doctrine and belief is ‘simul et ex nihilo = in the beginning,in an instant,on each of 6 x 24hr days,out of nothing God created everything very good[complete] = no millions of years of evolution,including theistic evolution necessary or possible = to accept or teach Origins evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics – have I understood this correctly – twinc



    Yes that is your opinion. As Catholics we are bound to believe that God could very well have created all things in heaven and on earth in the timeframe you suggest.

    However, we are permitted to believe that God created all things, both physical and spiritual out of nothing. That if He chose to create the earth, and populate it over millions of years, and that some animals would become extinct, others would evolve over time, by His will, and that at some point in history God created an immortal soul with free will and and infused it into our first human parent, (after all what separates us from the animals is that we have an immortal soul, free will and a rational mind, well at least some of us have a rational mind.) Nothing in creation is without God as it’s primary source,

    In an address given to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1941, when Pope Pius XII listed certain “elements which must be retained as certainly attested by the sacred author (of Genesis), without any possibility of an allegorical interpretation.” These elements in question are:

    [quote:3q5j1qki]1.The essential superiority of man in relation to other animals, by reason of his spiritual soul.

    2.The derivation of the body of the first woman from the first man.

    2.The impossibility that the father and progenitor of a man could be other than a human being, i.e., the impossibility that the first man could have been the son of an animal, generated by the latter in the proper sense of the term. In context, the Pope said, “Only from a man can another man descend, whom he can call father and progenitor” Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1941, pg. 506. On other questions concerning the origin of man, the pontiff said we must wait for more light “from science, illumined and guided by revelation.” Augustine Bea of the Biblical Institute believed these “other questions” still open include the degree in which a lower species may have cooperated in the formation of the first man, the way in which Eve was formed from Adam, and the age of the human race.[/quote:3q5j1qki]
    Further in the Encyclical Humani Generis, published in 1950, Pius XII expressed himself at length on the subject of evolution. This was the first time in history that the Holy See had officially treated in a document of such authority the question of the evolutionary origin of the human body. The passage should be quoted in detail:

    [quote:3q5j1qki]”The Magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from preexistent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God – be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human sciences and sacred theology allows.”[/quote:3q5j1qki]
    So I think I side with the Pope on this one. I do not deny that 6/24hr days could have been used by God, but I am not obliged to hold this De Fide. I am as a Catholic obliged to certain principles which the Pope, the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences all ove which he oversaw and published under his authority have pronounced.

    For a full examination of the source document, please go to the following link, as this was taken from one of the texts of the late Fr. John Hardon, S.J. and written before the Second Vatican Council. Fr. Hardon was well respected before and after the Council. Fr. Hardon was also hated and ridculed by liberal and modernist theologians for his orthodoxy. In most of the writings which pre-date the Council you will have to remember, that when he simply mentions the Vatican Council, he is referring to Vatican I. Since Vatican II had not yet occured when he was writing much of what is posted there was no need to distinguish it as Vatican I, as it was the only Vatican Council.



    With regard to the quote on the Kolbe Center’s main page, Pope Benedict XVI used it when he was referring to an article which Cardinal Schönborn had written after a discussion with the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Later as Pope Benedict XVI he praised the article, which reads as follows.

    [quote:25bgcrr4]The church, while leaving to science many of the details about the history of life on earth, teaches that the human intellect can discern a design in the natural world. Evolution is a very real possibility, but it is not an unplanned process of natural variation and natural selection. If God used evolution as the process by which he created the world and life, it was not a process he then left unguided to chance. We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom, not by accident. While an evolutionary process is well in keeping with Catholic teaching and biblical revelation, an unguided one, left to chance and outside the guidance of divine providence, is not.[/quote:25bgcrr4]
    Quite a different statement when read in context. Just as the Catholic position which allows for some sort of Evolution to be believed if it is not devoid of God’s active will.



    the Pope is only infallible ex cathedra – off the cuff statements are of little or no merit – it seems the Pope had to be corrected that he had probably been misinformed in accepting evolution since it did not require millions of years for coal and oil to form or be formed – btw it is not even anti Catholic to state that even St.Augustine was not infallible – hopefully most Catholics will now accept the experts and specialists,as advised and come back home – there appears to be a lot of confusion and way out,weird and wacky teachings and teachers about that Catholics should be aware of and beware of imho – twinc



    We are all lucky that your opinion does not have equal weight as the Pope.

    You seem to have fallen under the greatest of the modernist error; if something is not Ex Cathedra it need can simply be ignored, if it is not to your liking. If it is to your liking then eveyone must listen to you. A very sad state to be in indeed. But we must as Catholics give heed to the Pope’s statements, even when not Ex Cathedra, in the light which he gives them in, rather than following the private opinions of websites like the one you presented. Much like the problems that the followers of Fr. Feeney who did not submit to the Church, and hold one of several positions that Catholics are allowed as De Fide, excluding all other possiblities that the Holy See has given approbation to, you position yourself with the Modernists by rejecting those aspects of Catholic teaching or areas where the Church has given guidlines to but not finalized and defined in the strictest sense..

    For my part I’ll follow the Holy See. If the Holy See does close the matter by a De Fide statement, one which you have not presented. every Catholic including myself would have to assent to it, even if it was not what we understood before it was defined.



    okay – pontificate with me if you will and must but to do so against the united experts and specialists at is unacceptable – just try – twinc



    It’s not me you are arguing with, nor your websites. It’s Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, Benedict XVI. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, both before and after Vatican II, and the Pontifical Commission on Science.

    It is fine if you try and pursuade people to accept the position you take, but you’ve gone beyond that. You label all who accept a possiblity other than a 6 day 24hr interpretation as a heretic and modernist, even when they conform to the teachings of the Church. Then you hide behind the battle cry of the Modernists, “If it ain’t Ex-Cathedra, I don’t have to believe it.”

    So tell me is your position from Genesis Chapter 1 is that in 24 hour time periods, that on..

    Day 1: The Creation of the heavens and the earth, light and darkness
    Day 2: The firmarment above the waters, separating them
    Day 3: Dry land was created, separating the water, plants and trees created.
    Day 4: Two great lights and other smaller lights made in the firmament.
    Day 5: Sea Creatures, Birds, created and willed to multiply.
    Day 6: Beasts, Cattle, creaping things, created, Man Created male and female, all willed to multiply.Blessed by God and instructed to eat of the trees and seeds of the creation of day three.

    If we do not believe this as absolute we are heretics?



    it seems you have totally misconstrued and misinterpreted my views and standpoints to your own conclusions – stop quoting me or you but rely instead on Scriptures,Tradition,God,the Church and Church Fathers and the faith of our Fathers – it is not and was not I that stated that to accept or teach Origins Evolution is forbidden and anathema to and for Catholics etc nor that the Pontifical Accademy of Science are a bunch of Atheists and Evolutionists feeding our Pope with pseudo science etc – anyway Galileo was wrong all along and God,the Bible and the Church right for how could it be otherwise – twinc

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.