Posted on 04/03/2005 1:56:20 PM PDT by propertius
Never happened.
Vernacular Bibles were banned, as were unapproved (Protestant) Bibles. But reading, e.g., the Latin Vulgate was never banned.
Why don't you do a little research will you.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Pope John Paul II
Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
October 22, 1996
Evolution and the Church's Magisterium
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reduc tionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animal enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere inhet"; Encyclical Humani generic, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.
Many non-Catholics do not understand when the infallible statements are made.
Go to newadvent.com and check it out please.
Are you a Catholic who is Pope Bashing?
Or a Protestant who is Catholic bashing?
If the pope really thought he was sinless he wouldn't have needed the last rights... The pope was a holy man who I belive will be amoung the Saints and Angels in heavin soon... if not already... I will miss the holy father dearly...
Sorry, it was the Council of Toulouse, not Valencia. Also it was not an ecumenical council.
One big thing that does not get enough mention: John Paul snapped the rug out from under the "liberation theologians", who were in the process trying to reconcile Catholicism with Marxism. The better thing was to defeat Marxism and flush it down the toilet of history. That way you don't have to worry about reconciling with it....
As one would expect, the arsenal of suggestion techniques is heavily used.
Starting of course with suggesting that this not really a new doctrine: "In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith".
The big lie starts already here. This is what Encyclical Humani generis says:
5. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
34. ...All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church,...
35. ... not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. .. 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. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith
Absolutely irrelevant, since this is not about catholic dogmas. This is about the dogma of any Jewish or Christian religion.
Trying for the Miss Congeniality prize are we? You really think I don't know what "kenosis" means? I read that epistle in Greek and parts of it, like the passage in question, I have gone over repeatedly.
You really think that passage from Mark is something I never considered before or that I argue for my position on tradition without knowing and considering that passage? It is among the oldest anti-"tradition" arguments around. Can you seriously think that I would have left an ordained ministry in a Protestant church to become a Catholic without considering that passage? If you can, you'll consider anything as long as it belittles people who disagree with you.
Do you really think the way to persuade people is by being offensive? One would have to conclude so from your posts.
This unpleasant exchange began when you argued that Mary couldn't have needed a Savior unless she had sinned. I suggested that there are everyday ways people are saved from everyday hazards without actually becoming victim to those hazards. Another example would be that the presence of guards "saves" us from being assaulted which means, we hope, that while they are there, we are not assaulted, not that they only stop an assault once it has started. It was just a suggestion of another way to look at the argument you had advanced.
As far as I recall, instead of acknowledging, as a mature person might, that the point was worth some consideration, you immediately went full bore, as though this were some kind of televised debate. Then when I do not respond to one of your arguments, you, with the subtlety and grace of Al Gore on a bad day, complain that I have not addressed the issues you raised. You dish it out, but you can't take it.
I don't know why anyone would want to discuss the weather with you. You certainly don't have the courtesy to discuss something sensitive and important. I have no interest at all in continuing to talk with you.
bookmark for later
"Everyone is agreed that John Paul was a wonderful man. But, to me as a non-Catholic, I do not consider he was infallible."
No one is infallible spiritually or otherwise. If they were we wouldn't have needed Christ on the cross to redeem us. Leave it to "Informed Comment" to be divisive. Their venom for Bush knows no low.
Who the heck ever said he was SINLESS??? That's nutty. He wasn't sinless....Mary was the only sinless human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.