Papal Contradiction? Evolution

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't this a contradiction of papal teaching?

 

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

"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."

 

is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con?

 

i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i guess one could also say that the tenants like God doesn't exist are what's ficticious... ?

[CatholicCid]

isn't this a contradiction of papal teaching?

 

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

"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."

 

is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con?

 

i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this?

 

This seems more so linguistic confusion then anything else. Pius XII rejected evolutionary theory which attempts to usurp God's role as Creator. He did not reject an evolutionary theory which recognizes the hand of a Creator.

 

From Humani Generis, paragraph 36:

For these reasons 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.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

[Fidei Defensor]

Bump

[reyb]

To make it short, the theory of evolution is correct provided it will not go against Catholic faith. Truth therefore rested on Catholic faith (period).

[dairygirl4u2c]

i feel the inquiery was satisfactorarily answered. i posted this thread because i was looking for information i did not possess.

not that i was really arguing the point to begin with, but i concede the debate.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

as far as i'm aware the evolution of man is still not fact, there are to many missing links. And also your right, encyclical letters are not infalible matters of faith and morals, i will tell you some of these infallible matters that i learnt recently. 1. The supremecy of the pope as christs vicar on earth. 2.The magesterium of the church. 3.The sacrifice of the mass. 4.The absolution in confession. 5. The real and perpetual presence of jesus in the eucharist.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

as far as i'm aware the evolution of man is still not fact, there are to many missing links as i assume also evolution in general. And also your right, encyclical letters are not infalible matters of faith and morals, i will tell you some of these infallible matters that i learnt recently. 1. The supremecy of the pope as christs vicar on earth. 2.The magesterium of the church. 3.The sacrifice of the mass. 4.The absolution in confession. 5. The real and perpetual presence of jesus in the eucharist.... Well actually unsure if there infallible matters of faith and morals but this book i read said these 5 are most important to be believed by catholic christians above all other doctrine of the church. I guess there are 2 more somone told me but unsure if there church doctrine and that is 1. The immaculate conception. and 2. Mary's assumption mind,heart,body and soul into heaven. But than this book says the original 5 i mentioned far out rank all other doctrine of the church and must be believed, but than again the nihil obstat and imprimateur do not mean a book is absolutely mistake free, though nihil obstat means nothing contrary to faith it means as far as i'm aware is a gesture that the writer has not intended delibrately to mislead or decieve anyone in matters of  faith, not that the written works are perfect.

 

Hope that all helps.

God bless you.

Onward christian souls.

JESUS iz LORD.

[mortify]

Sorry to inform you but we never argued that Encyclicals are infallible documents to begin with. There is no such thing as an infallible Papal document anyway, only infallible Papal statements. Otherwise I think you're grasping for straws.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ive heard papal documents are a matter of interpretaion as to whether infallible... are they teaching the church in faith and morals, or jsut writing ?

 

and i don't see much of a differene between papal documents and statements. can you clarify the differences?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

actually i was told the 2 doctrines about the holy mother also have been spoken on as infallible matters of faith and morals. 1. Her Immaculate conception and 2. Her assumption into heaven mind,heart,body and soul. The person that told me may be wrong, does anyone know ? 

Edited March 31, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

also as far as i'm aware the holy catholic church is agnostic on the matter of evolution, neither yes or no until it is proved without a doubt. Also did you all know the church is also somewhat agnostic on the creation story and adam and eve, but this can not be proven till heaven i guess, but as far as i'm aware she says it is neither wrong or contrary to faith to believe it as a spiritual story or as actuality.

[mortify]

and i don't see much of a differene between papal documents and statements. can you clarify the differences?

 

A documment is a collection of statements.

[Fidei Defensor]

[attachment=3130:3520_586325438044893_239032568_n.jpg]

[fides' Jack]

ive heard papal documents are a matter of interpretaion as to whether infallible... are they teaching the church in faith and morals, or jsut writing ?

 

and i don't see much of a differene between papal documents and statements. can you clarify the differences?

 

I think you heard wrong.  The very definition of an infallible teaching makes it clear that when a pope is speaking infallibly, there's no confusion that he's doing so.  Basically he has to say: "Hey everyone, this statement is infallible: YADDA YADDA YADDA".

 

However, that doesn't mean we aren't obliged to believe the non-infallible statements.  Unless we have the word of a higher ecclesiastical authority, we are obliged to believe in truths of faith or morals when given to us by the Church - even if they are not infallibly proclaimed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty sure that you are mistaken, actually. the pope doesnt have to say "this is an infallible doctinre' or "i am defining this" etc. he just has to be intentionally teaching the church. the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. 

eventhis doesnt say he has to say "this is infallible" or things in that regard.

 

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiffwhen he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universalChurch, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which theDivine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Churchirreformable."

I can find plenty of examples if you want me to. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

can you find it defined anywhere that it says that it has to be "this is inallible" or stuff like that?

[Nola Seminarian]

isn't this a contradiction of papal teaching?

Pope Pius XII addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. Here he makes plain his fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad while attacking those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution " explains the origin of all things." He wrote:

"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."

is it that one could argue encyclicals are not necessarily infallible documents? they could be, all depends on the intention of the pope writing it? what evidences are there in this case, pro and con?

i could i think find some quotes of popes saying evolution is true. but i am assuming it's scientifically validated, evolution. perhaps i shouldnt be so quick to think this?

In light of recent scientific developments, we can almost be 100% assured that evolution is true. As Christians we must hold the truth that there was an orginal set of first parents through which sin entered the world (we have no idea how that actually played out because, hey, there was no writing or even organized language back then.) we also must realize that we are to obey the current magisterium of the Church when it comes to things like this. I'm pretty sure JPII and BXVI have both talked about evolution favorably. So what one Pope said with a less complete base of scientific knowledge does not Trump what two more recent popes have said with more complete understandings of the process of evolution.

r more help on this, look Dr. Christopher Bagelow. He's a theology professor at Notre Dame Seminary (the Seminary in New Orleans, Not the university in South Bend) and is very well versed (in fact he wrote a wonder full textbook) in the subject of evolution and Catholicism Edited April 27, 2013 by Nola Seminarian

[T-fish]

The Pope just has to say stuff to keep people happy. 

In the end a Catholic isn't supposed to delve into science if it draws them away from the Source of Life, The Creator, aka God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

 

Who cares about evolution. Christians are supposed to repent and evolve (sin no more). That's all that matters.

[jim111]

This also part of that encyclical

"Wherefore, the magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the teaching of "evolution" be treated in accord with the present status of human disciplines and of theology, by investigations and disputations by learned men in both fields; insofar, of course, as the inquiry is concerned with the origin of the human body arising from already existing and living matter; and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, namely of those in favor and of those in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that all are ready to yield to the judgment of the Church, to which Christ has entrusted the duty of interpreting Sacred Scriptures authentically, and of preserving the dogmas of faith.*Yet some with daring boldness transgress this freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking." Humani Generes, Pius XII