Posted on 05/21/2005 5:12:39 AM PDT by Tantumergo
On the morning of Sunday, April 24, 2005, during his Coronation ceremony homily Pope Benedict XVI made a clear indication that he is distancing himself from the theory of evolution. Translated from the Italian, the pope stated:
“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”
Moreover, if the pope were not giving an indication about his reservations concerning the theory of evolution, he simply could have said that we are all willed and loved by God, but to preface this with a denunciation of evolution means that the pope wanted to put in opposition the Christian viewpoint of a created universe over against the haphazard world of chance espoused by evolutionary theory.
Those of us who know the pope are not surprised at this sudden turn of events. Members of our Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation met with the then Cardinal Ratzinger in October 2002 and explained to him the scientific evidence against evolution and the scientific evidence for creation, evidence that prior to our visit the Cardinal had not been made aware.
Thank God we have a pope who is willing to take a critical look at the claims of modern science. Please continue to pray for him that God enlightens his mind.
what about in Romans where it says all creation groans... sorry don't have it handy. I thought that referred to that Creation as in the Garden of Eden was "perfect" and that as the result of the Fall, i.e no earthquakes, fires, tsunamis, etc, and that Creation now groans as it is affected by Adam's sin. I supoose they could occur in Paradise only if no one got hurt by them. I had always thought the animals would not die in Paradise but that could just be sentimental
But I do appreciate your point and it is actually quite helpful. thanks for posting that
s, Judeo-Christian ping.
Any links to CAI should include the warning Mr. Sungenis is an antisemite who uses Nazi propaganda.
"Any links to CAI should include the warning Mr. Sungenis is an antisemite who uses Nazi propaganda."
That is a gross detraction. On one occasion he did cite material without checking the source and it subsequently did prove to be from a web-site with Nazi links. Once that fact was pointed out to him, he immediately retracted the material he was citing and took it down from his site.
Hardly the action of an anti-semite, or do you believe that everybody who believes in the need for the Jews to be brought to Christ to be an anti-semite?
"As for the monkey question, either you know biologists and paleontologists make no such claim"
Oh please, get real. This is the exact claim of evolutionary theory, its just that they dress it up differently by calling the "ancestor" of humanity a "hominid". Whether you call this ape a "hominid" or a "monkey" makes no real difference.
One has only to look at the so-called "Australopithecus" partial skeleton to see that it is an ape-like creature, and this is one of the ancestors they claim for humanity.
Nevertheless, go further back down the fairytale evo-hypothesis, and they believe that those creatures descended from primitive primates, which in turn descended from reptiles, which in turn descended from amphibians, which in turn descended from fish, which in turn descended from bacteria, which miraculously emerged from a lifeless primordial soup.
If anyone is going to believe in evolutionism, then of necessity they must accept that their ancestors were bacteria, never mind apes.
The very idea that life can spontaneously emerge from inert matter is a far more incredible hypothesis to suggest than is the hypothesis that God created life.
"WHAT IF God, and whoever He was talking to, (The Word) purposely took an existing creature (which He naturally created) and combined it's DNA with that of those in His domain. Let's say a gorilla with a deity.
IMO that would be creationism,and it might even have happened several times to come up with the finished product. And with the exception of the theory that creation all happened within 24 hrs, it would not even be at odds with the Bible."
What you propose COULD indeed have happened, but why would a perfect, omnipotent, Almighty God have needed so many attempts to get it right? Was it beyond His powers to get it right on the first attempt?
"the sacred authors, like other men, place the frame as centered on earth: hence, "the earth was established immovable", "the sun stood still", etc. - these aren't errors but are completely true."
You are quite correct when discussing from the p.o.v. of movable frames of reference. However, I think the geocentrism that Sungenis proposes is one where earth is a fixed and stationary centre of the universe.
I don't see that one needs to go along with such assertions to maintain the integrity of revelation.
One has only to look at the so-called "Australopithecus" partial skeleton to see that it is an ape-like creature, and this is one of the ancestors they claim for humanity.
I'd suggest that you look at a human skeleton and then ask yourself this question: Why does it so closely resemble the skeletons of other hominids, both present and past? Was God out of ideas when it came to planning skeletal structures? What could possibly explain such resemblances? Or is there no explanation except "God did it", which is no explanation at all?
In fact, I'll make that a formal question: Why do human skeletons and other hominid skeletons have so many points of resemblance? What's the Bible's answer? What's the 'intelligent design' answer?
One of the strengths of evolutionary theory is that it has a reasonable account to give of such resemblances (and the differences, too).
The very idea that life can spontaneously emerge from inert matter is a far more incredible hypothesis to suggest than is the hypothesis that God created life.
Matter inert? That's far from the case. Quantum mechanics, which has been becoming an ever more developed experimental science in recent decades, presents a picture of matter at the smallest levels which is truly astonishing. At short distances, little clouds of probabilities are incessantly overlapping and exchanging identities, producing the atoms and molecules which constitute all the ordinary matter in our cosmos. The word 'inert' fails to capture the dynamicity of the small.
One problem I have with theistic evolution is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to hold to a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall after Eve ate the fruit and Adam denied responsibility.
Evolution is about random chance. Darwin really left no room at all for a controlling intelligence when he conceived his theory. That's something that some Christians try to insert in order to straddle the gap between an atheistic culture and a Christian worldview.
The fact is, evolution is logically used as an excuse for everything from abortion to sterilization to euthanasia. From an evolutionary perspective, all of these things make perfect sense. Only a Christian worldview can counteract them.
"In fact, I'll make that a formal question: Why do human skeletons and other hominid skeletons have so many points of resemblance? What's the Bible's answer? What's the 'intelligent design' answer?"
Its the same answer that you get to the question: "Why do human cells and amoeba have so many points of resemblance in that they both have nuclei containing DNA?"
The answer is that they both have the same Designer working with the same raw materials that He Himself created for this purpose.
Is it not true that in any field of human endeavour, one can identify a craftsman's work by similarities that are common to his different works? It is exactly the same with everything that has been created - it bears the common mark of He who created it. The very fact that we live in an intelligible universe is in itself a proof that an intelligence designed it.
On this view, the structures of living organisms, past and present, become like daubs of paint on a canvas, that is, their only reasons for being there are that the painter decided to place them there. The daubs neither influence nor are influenced by each other, and so any resemblances or differences among them are accidental, without causal or explanatory significance. Hence the notion of trying to come up with a causal history of the changes among organisms makes no sense.
It's fortunate, indeed, that the number of people working in fields related to biology who actually think this way is quite small. Were the number larger, I might begin to fear for the future of biological science (at least as it is pursued in the United States).
Here is an interesting link:
Creation versus Evolution. As the debate rages, there remain those who contend that they can subscribe to modern evolutionary theory and, at the same time, believe in God’s Good News as revealed in the Bible.1 Is this truly possible?
Theistic evolutionists claim that God created man by evolutionary processes, that is man is said to have evolved from lower forms of life. If this were the case, then all life, including man and his presumed ancestors, would have been subject to death throughout history. This is because evolution depends on death to weed out lesser fit organisms to make room for the development and refinement of surviving species. However, the Bible tells us that death came about as a result of sin. If Adam had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, if he had not fallen into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what need is there for redemption? None! What all of this means is that we cannot give up the Genesis account of creation, but we could the doctrine of Geocentrism and get along.
Genesis 3 unmistakably asserts that death overcame man when he transgressed God’s command. Death, according to Scripture, had no hold on man until some later period following his creation. This flies directly in the face of evolutionary theory. Still, theistic evolutionists may try to skirt these passages by regarding the opening portion of Genesis as non-historical. But such recourse can only lead them to even more disastrous avenues. Theistic evolutionists can allegorize Genesis as much as they want, but to do so, they have to contend against Scripture itself. Paul, in such passages as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, clearly treats the Genesis account in historical terms and he speaks of human death as God’s judgment on sin. It was for this very reason—to answer for God’s punishment for our sin—that Christ died. This is the very heart of the Gospel. Quite frankly, Theistic Evolution, in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms, somewhat like talking about burning snowflakes.
But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as theistic evolutionists would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? Those clinging to evolutionary dogma would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for our sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In their attempt to fuse evolutionary theory with Scripture, theistic evolutionists only wind up perverting God’s Good News into no news, as we remain dead in our sins.
http://www.equip.org/free/CP0108.htm
I am frequently asked whether there is much Catholic criticism of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT). The answer is in the negative. Not that all Catholics are terribly enthusiastic about it, but most think it is no big deal that Catholics are in productive dialogue with evangelical Protestants. After all, the Catholic Church is in dialogue with almost everybody. It comes with being catholic. But there are exceptions. Catholic Apologetics International (CAI), for instance, devotes forty–three pages to criticizing an address I recently gave at Wheaton College in Illinois and concludes: “Father Neuhaus has shown himself to be an enemy of Christ, with a soothing voice and a flowery tongue that masks the Serpent’s hiss. He wears the clothing of a sheep, but like a ravenous wolf he seeks to dissolve the Holy Church, and like Esau, to sell Her precious pearls of truth for a bowl of false and unholy ecumenical porridge.” So you can see that some Catholics are not entirely approving of my work with ECT....In another long essay from CAI, we are told that “it appears that Vatican II, in intention but not in fact, did redefine the perennial teaching of the Church.” “That is to say that ‘the Spirit of Vatican II,’ as it is interpreted and applied by the more progressive innovators . . . appears to be exactly in line with what the Council itself intended to present.” The Church teaches that Protestants are damned; Vatican II says they have means of grace and may be saved. The Church says that Jews are collectively guilty of the death of Christ; Vatican II says not. The Church says that religious freedom is a pernicious heresy; Vatican II affirms religious freedom. On each point, the CAI document cites earlier councils, popes, and saints in order to establish the “perennial teaching” of the Church. The unavoidable implication is that Vatican II was a false council and the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II are devoid of magisterial authority. Like his soulmates on the far left, the CAI author has no use for Newman’s understanding of the development of doctrine, an understanding explicitly endorsed by the Magisterium since Vatican II...
The fact remains that at the very best Sungenis exercised extremely poor judgment in relying on “studies” and “expertise” by extremists, kooks, and incoherent “researchers” like Mohr. So if Robert Sungenis’ standing within the Catholic community has now gone belly-up, he has no one to blame but himself. But –judging from his latest attempts to justify himself – it seems Sungenis has no interest in accepting responsibility and culpability for his mistakes and instead wants to blame his critics for “destroying” his career as a Catholic apologetics writer. He seems to forget that none of his critics put a gun to his head and forced him to throw discernment out the window and rely on anti-Semitic and lunatic fringe propaganda for his “data”. Nor did his critics force him to fail to do his homework properly by consulting a wide variety of reliable academic sources, not only those “teachers” who “tickled his ears.” Nor did his critics write his misguided article for him and brainwash him into throwing in his lot with misguided “anti-Zionist” nut cases. But on the other hand, maybe Sungenis is really part of The Conspiracy and his article was really a cleverly-disguised Secret Global Freemason-Liberal-Zionist Plot to Make Catholic Apologists Look Silly.
When one of his critics takes him to task for citing as a “reliable source” Neo-Nazi “Zionism expert” Mark Weber and his Institute for Historical Review, set up by Liberty Lobby founder Willis Carto specifically to “prove” that the Holocaust was a “Zionist hoax,” Robert Sungenis wrote the following:
First, let me say again that the website I consulted had no reference to Weber or the Journal of Historical Review. If I had known that, you can depend upon it that I would have cited it as a source, since the Journal of Historical Review is a very credible source!
But here is the irony of Mr. Cork's issue. Notice how he just skips right over the fact that Mark Weber has written an article on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution, an article that is included in a highly prestigious and credible magazine, The Journal of Historical Review! You can't get much more credible than that, as far as history goes.
So let me ask, is not Mr. Weber confirming my thesis that Jewish Zionists were instrumental in the Bolshevik revolution? Of course he is. But you would never know that from reading Mr. Cork's little snippet? Of course not. His view is so myopic in his quest to destroy me, that he doesn't even notice the forest for the trees. I think this is very telling, indeed. It shows precisely what kind of person with whom we are dealing. Mr. Cork is so bent on discrediting me with the charge of plagiarism, that he doesn't even notice that his very citation of Weber destroys his whole thesis that I am an anti-semite who got his facts all mixed up about the Bolsheviks! Thank you, Mr. Cork. I couldn't have done better myself.
Notice, please, how Sungenis disingenuously dances around the issue Cork raised, namely Mark Weber’s and the IHR’s credibility as “sources” –an issue Sungenis apparently cares not one whit about.
But just for argument’s sake, let’s give old Bob the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he was just overly careless and stupidly neglected to check up on the backgrounds, credentials, and connections of both Weber and the IHR as part of the necessary task one must undertake to determine the credibility of one’s sources. However, this is especially stunning when one takes into account the fact that reams of investigative journalism have been written about the IHR –including its current director, Mark Weber-- going back at least 20 years.
If he would spend half as much time cleaning up his own house and stop worrying so much about the houses of the pagans and non-Catholics, we might have the grace of God to help convert those very pagans. I make no apologies for what I say. I hope John Paul's time is over soon so that we can get a real man of God in the pontiff's chair, God willing. Sungenesis :Group email list, 6/26/2001 6:43:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Wishing for the death of Pope John Paul II goes hand and hand with his antisemitism and his geocentrism.
You sure picked a winner, Tantumergo. Sungenis is an unrepentant, loopy, antisemite. Your defense of him doesn't fit with your usually knowledgeable self. ETWN, and many others, have disassociated themselves with him due to his antisemitism and nutball "science."
The future world was different than the world of creation, so to maybe the cicumstances and needs of even God changed.
For instance, it came to pass that God saw the need to create woman (Eve) so He did. We can only speculate why He didn't do it right off the bat. Obviously, man couldn't procreate or replicate himself, and that need had to be addressed. Up until such time as Eve (woman) arrived man had to keep being created. The Bible does give a clue as to what need God had of men.
Genesis 2: In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- 7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
God wanted man to work the earth
My understanding is that the Church does not choose one theory over another theory. You can believe their is evolution of the body but you cannot as a Catholic believe in the evolution of the soul.
'The Church teaches that Protestants are damned; Vatican II says they have means of grace and may be saved. The Church says that Jews are collectively guilty of the death of Christ; Vatican II says not. The Church says that religious freedom is a pernicious heresy; Vatican II affirms religious freedom. On each point, the CAI document cites earlier councils, popes, and saints in order to establish the “perennial teaching” of the Church.'
Notice that he does not quote Sungenis' words here - these are his own take on them. Also the reason why Neuhaus was particularly stung by Sungenis' attack is that Neuhaus was indeed caught with his proverbial pants down at Wheaton College. Unbeknown to him, his address was taped and he clearly said that the future ecumenical Christian church WOULD NOT BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, but would rather be some as yet unknown amalgam of the different denominations. Sungenis was quite right to call him out on this and other statements of the ECT which do indeed sell the Catholic faith down the river.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you that Sungenis has gone way too far on some of these issues, and even if some of the info. he has cited is correct, he should have gone to original sources rather than re-quoting it from some of the vile places that he did.
However, while many of the Catholic apologetics organisations have disassociated themselves from Sungenis for fear of the zionist backlash, it is notable that the then Cardinal Ratzinger was prepared to take time to meet with him and his organisation. If he who is now Pope did not see fit to cut him off, are we to be more Catholic than the Pope?
Elsewhere I read that Fr. Neuhaus was asked at Wheaton if the unity would be achieved without the Pope being the head of the church. He said no.
Sungenis gets a lot of stuff wrong
Bob Sungenis, Catholic apologist and recently, so-called "Catholic traditionalist," wrote about me in a recent article on his website:
The real problem here is that, just like his view of the pope, Mirus will not allow anyone to question the motives and agenda of the Zionists of Israel. (He and his neo-conservative “messianic” political affiliates (eg., Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Shawn Hannity, Rod Dreher, et al., names which you can see promoted on Dave Armstrong’s website)).
(Jeffrey Mirus: Self-Appointed Policeman of Catholic Internet Sites [Part] 2)
This is no big deal at all. But I just found it, well, "weird" (per my title), since I don't have the slightest idea of where he gets this idea, and I found it curious. I post curiosities here sometimes, just to have something to talk about, out of the ordinary; chit chat; no more, no less (as I certainly have enough super-serious, "heavy" material). As I recall (though I may have forgotten), I have scarcely mentioned Coulter, Kristol, or Hannity at all (I may have a link to an article by them somewhere). I don't discuss politics all that much on my website or blog, or even current events in Israel. I did do some election political commentary, but that was largely in terms of polls and predictions. When I write about politics at all, it is usually about abortion. I also disagreed with a fellow Catholics' position against the war in Iraq in a recent debate.
I don't even have cable TV, so I don't watch any of these people's shows. I see Bill Kristol occasionally on one of the Sunday morning newstalk shows, and agree with a lot of what he says, politically. I've heard Hannity a few times, mostly when he sub-hosted for Rush Limbaugh (whom I listen to very little: almost exclusively during election seasons, anymore). But so what? That hardly equates with "promoting" either of them, or Ann Coulter (who seems pretty cool, the few times I have read her stuff or seen her on TV at my parents house -- who have cable --). Where does this observation come from, then?! I find it pretty funny.
I did indeed mention Rod Dreher on my website, in one context only: with regard to the sexual scandal in the Church, on my "Catholic Scandals" page (five links), but these were his articles which consisted of scathingly critical remarks about the Church and what went on in that sad, tragic scandal, so Sungenis could hardly object to that, given his recent overwhelming agenda (seems like he should be cheering me on). I had never even heard of Dreher before that, nor have I read anything of his since. Nor do I have any particular plans to do so (regarding him or any of the other three). So I wonder from whence this observation comes?
Still curious, I did a search on Google of "Hannity Dave Armstrong" and could find not a thing. I did the same for "Coulter Dave Armstrong" and came across one link on my site to an article of hers: again, on the sexual scandal. But again, this was a subject matter that I can't imagine Bob would disagree with ("Should Gay Priests Adopt?"). She was being critical of precisely what she should be critical of: the nefarious homosexual and liberal agendas within certain circles of the Church. If this amounts to my "promotion" of her (a link to one article that Bob would presumably agree with), then so be it. I find that ridiculous, but what can I do?
Then I searched for "Kristol Dave Armstrong". Again, I came up with all zeroes. Yet I am somehow "promoting" him? I can't even find anything I have written at all about the guy (or Hannity or Coulter)! LOL Wow . . .
I will forward this post to Bob, and see how he explains this. This is much ado about nothing, and of no importance in the larger scheme of things. Much more troubling are the remarks with which Bob Sungenis concludes his article:
Mirus’ approach to the Galileo issue is common in Catholic apologetics today. They have accepted, without question, the dogma of modern science, but the truth is there is not the slightest proof that Galileo was correct. Still, these apologists would rather make our previous popes, their Sacred Congregations and St. Robert Bellarmine look like idiots rather than even entertain the possibility that modern cosmology could be wrong. For them, modern science is their god. The truth is, they know very little about true science. True science admits that there is no proof for heliocentrism, but you would never know that from people like Jeffrey Mirus. And if someone like me even suggests that modern science is wrong and that the Church of the 17th century was right, the wrath of “Catholic Apologists” will come upon you like an avalanche. I can only conclude that I am not dealing with true Catholics but those who are either mired in ignorance or who have an agenda with the darker side of this world.
Since Bob had just cited Gary Hoge at length: a friend of mine and great apologist who has disagreed with, and debated Bob at great length about the "controversial" facts that the earth rotates and goes around the sun, and since Bob is scathingly critical of Mirus in this article, and by extension (or direct statement), many other Catholic apologists (note how he puts the description in quotation marks), does this mean that Bob thinks Hoge, Mirus, perhaps even myself, and many other apologists who disagree with him on various things (e.g., Scott Hahn, whom he has vigorously critiqued, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Steve Ray, Mark Shea, Shawn McElhinney -- all colleagues and friends of mine to one degree or another -- , and many others), are not "true Catholics," and in league with the "darker side of this world"? It would seem so, but hey, maybe I'm misreading something. I would prefer to hear what Bob has to say about it. I will inform him that whatever he writes to me privately about this, I will post here, for the sake of my readers. Since he has made these charges publicly, he ought to defend them publicly, too.
# posted by Dave (Armstrong) @ 5:59 PM
(If he who is now Pope did not see fit to cut him off, are we to be more Catholic than the Pope?)
I am hoping he is going to Confesssion
As to your question, it is better directed towards Sungenis who has been at war with MANY Catholic apologists.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Question for you, when the Church decrees something is a sin (e.g. taking Communion in hand), then declares it not a sin and makes it a practice, how is that reconciled, theologically.
IOW, if I asked a Priest why, if it was common knowledge that Communion was taken in hand in the early Church, did they interpret the practice later on to be a sin? Was it mortal, venial? I can't remember.
Why couldn't they just have said, the practice is changed, this is how we're going to do it now, and never declared it a sin, so that when they changed it back, it would just be changing a practice again?
I don't understand how an error in judgement like that can be made?
I'm speaking specifically in the instance of Communion in hand because when it was made a sin, they had knowledge that it was practiced in the early Church. What was the revelation? Is it discussed anywhere, according to the elements of my question?
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.