A lot of Catholics aren't going to like the labeling of evolution as "Protestant." Most "theistic evolutionism" is a simple social prejudice against "inbred trailer trash" and a desire to not be in agreement with such people. Even Serafim Rose, the Orthodox creationist and author of Genesis and Early Man, while defending supernatural Creation and the difference of the original creation from what we know today, nevertheless refused to get into the "age of the earth" issue even though he found out, much to his surprise, that the church fathers he relied on were young earthers. The only possible reason for this is to avoid being associated with "hillbillies."
I note that there are creationist Catholics on this forum--not many, but a few. I also note that none of them ever post an article like this one but insist on ignoring the issue as if it were of no importance whatsoever.
Ping for your interest.
Sorry but the author knows nothing about Catholic doctrine or theology. Catholic theology does not presuppose a literal interpretation of the Bible and has no fundamental problem with evolution.
Everyone take a screenshot because I am about to defend Martin Luther - something I rarely do.
The above article says the following:
“2. Today’s Modernism comes from Luther’s belief: “all that is dogma and theological reflection is nothing other than the symbolic transcription of a collective religious experience in continual evolution.””
Yet, as far as I know, that quote never came from Luther. It does appear, however, in the passage below from a traditionalist Catholic webpage:
“Luther first overturned the traditional concept of faith. Man, wholly corrupted by original sin, is, for him, incapable of knowing the truth and loving the good. Faith does not lie in the reason and in the will, made putrid by sin, but in “fiducial faith”, which is born from a feeling of deep desperation and has its proper object the mercy of God, instead of the truths revealed by Him. Appealing to this pietistic and individualistic vision of faith, Luther and his followers make religious experience the only criterion of the Christian life. In the evangelical-Protestant tradition as a whole, religion is seen as a salvific “encounter” with God, in which subjective faith absorbs and dissolves objective faith. In the Esquisse d’une philosophie de la religion (1897) written by Auguste Sabatier (1836-1901) this writer follows through to the end the Protestant reduction of faith to feeling. The act of faith is understood as an encounter with the dark and mysterious power on which the soul depends and on which depends its destiny. All that is dogma and theological reflection is nothing other than the symbolic transcription of a collective religious experience in continual evolution.” http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/12/roberto-de-mattei-double-post-meltdown.html
Yoo-hooo, I hear you talkin' 'bout me ...
And I never post articles, so it's nothing specific to this topic.
Interesting. Will read tomorrow. Thanks.
I tend to think that the reason why most of us don't focus on it is because, although the Modernists in the Catholic Church have encouraged/supported the theory of evolution, they have not made it official Church doctrine. Our focus tends to be on Vatican II because it is there where we find formal contradictions with Traditional Catholic theology. I may be wrong, but I do not think evolution is even mentioned in those documents at all.
That is not to say that we don't find issues with evolution and I agree that it does contradict Traditional Catholic beliefs. I'm not sure that I agree that evolution is what initiated and caused Modernism in the Church, but I do think that it is at least another example of how Modernism has crept into the Church.
I will look further into Traditional views on evolution and its connection with Modernism.
Which is why the Modernists latched so enthusiastically on to Teilhard de Chardin's theories, as a means of legitimizing the notion of "evolution" toward a higher religious understanding.
Faith (based on Divine Revelation) and reason (based on natural revelation) must remain in harmony. Therefore, "natural science" will never disprove Divine Revelation.
No credible evidence has been presented in support of macroevolution from ape to man. The same fossil record that disproves the "new earth" theory does not provide a chain of evidence establishing the proof that Adam and Eve evolved from apes, yet in the field of genetics, the consensus that all humans descend from Mitochondrial Eve actually provides scientific support of Genesis.
Regarding the Six Days of Creation, there is no scriptural reason for cognitive dissonance were one to believe that "day" might not refer to a 24-hour period.
"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past." Psalm 90:4
Pinging this thread (while I’m still able) to you for your interests. Please read the article carefully, and then the responses of Catholic FReepers. According to some of them, the author of the article can’t really be Catholic because he’s against evolution.
If not, then why does someone who denies that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and says all Christians are dupes of the giant fraud of Christianity care what such dupes believe about the Creation??
Obviously, they only care as a means to their end of attacking one group of people they call dupes of the fraud Jesus Christ more than another group of said dupes of the fraud Jesus Christ.