When the Vatican gets it right...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

After spending about an hour reading other Catholic statements regarding evolution, I can not make heads or tails out their current position.  Their position seems to be going through its own evolution and seems to have become purposely murky and revisionary to the extent that they're no longer taking a position at all.

As to my own point of view…For the record:

I understand the Genesis account is symbolic, as is the ENTIRE Old Testament.  But I also understand the bible interprets the Old Testament as BOTH “the literal historical record” (e.g. King David was a literal person) and “symbolic of future events” (e.g. King David symbolized the Messiah).

I believe Genesis is to be interpreted BOTH literally and figuratively, because that is EXACTLY how the New Testament interprets it:

Example of Symbolical Interpretation of Genesis:

Gal 4:21”Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.  24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. ”

Example of Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

Acts 17:26-27 "From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Something I have noticed over the years when reading Catholic writings:  the older the Catholic document, the more likely it is to match my own beliefs.  Here is a perfect example:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf 

It is a very in-depth (148 pages) Catholic study of St. Augustine writings on creation, the same writings the Church is now using to claim support for Evolution.  The Catholic study finds St. Augustine’s writings to be completely contrary to the notion of Evolution and summarizes its points on page 46:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bottom line, I have read St Augustine’s writings several years ago, and my interpretation of St. Augustine’s writing match the above study’s finding and I pretty much agree with the study’s concluding remarks:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do think the Catholic Church is being revisionary in regard to St. Augustine's writings.  And, now again, as always, I find my doctrine to have more in common with earlier Catholics.  And, when it comes to the oldest writings of the Church Fathers, I am more Catholic in many regards than the current day Catholic Church.

[12th Doctor]

This is what happens when fools take people out of context.  Yes, Pius said we are all descended from Adam.  But, he was saying that to contradict the notion that anyone one human, Christian or non-Christian, is more advanced, or greater than any other (a notion you would most likely disagree with).  Basically, he was denying Nazism, genocide, etc, and the notion that there is such a thing as an "elect" (from birth) and that should be used to discriminate against other human beings.

It is one of the many statements that Pius made against Nazi practices that people ignore, or bash for not having been "clear enough".  It is a metaphor, for saying that we are all the same people in God's eyes.

sorry, I didn't notice your statment (which I placed in red) the first time I read your post...

Supersoulty, I am having trouble reconciling your interpretation of Pius  (which I placed in red) with the actual statement of Pius:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like Pius is stating that we are all physically descended from Adam and the original sin was actually committed by an individual Adam and it was passed through generation to all of us.

In fact, the way I read Pius XII is that he is clearly stating that the belief that we are all phyically descended from Adam is NOT an option

Is that not a fair interpretation of what Pius is saying?

---

[just noticed I overwrote a previous post of mine...sorry for the confusion...I've tried to combine the elements of both]

Pius said that belief in the evolutionary theory that all humans had a common source is not anti-Christian.  But, that wasn't the only theory of evolution that was prominent when he wrote those words.  There were people who believed that "humanity" sprouted up in different places, from slightly different creatures.  There were scientific racists.  Eugenics was still quite popular.  What Pius is addressing here is those theories of evolution.  The ones that said some people are different and better than other people.  The belief that any walking, talking, thinking creature is in any way different or inherently superior to another is anti-Christian because it violates the notion that God created us all in his own image, equally.

Pius makes a stand for that, because that is that ballgame, right there. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Pius said that belief in the evolutionary theory that all humans had a common source is not anti-Christian.  But, that wasn't the only theory of evolution that was prominent when he wrote those words.  There were people who believed that "humanity" sprouted up in different places, from slightly different creatures.  There were scientific racists.  Eugenics was still quite popular.  What Pius is addressing here is those theories of evolution.  The ones that said some people are different and better than other people.  The belief that any walking, talking, thinking creature is in any way different or inherently superior to another is anti-Christian because it violates the notion that God created us all in his own image, equally.

Pius makes a stand for that, because that is that ballgame, right there. 

I simply can not reconcile the below quote with you're above interpretation of it.  I am NOT questioning what argument he is addressing, it's just that the points he makes are universal and cannot be undone simply by changing the target of the argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But his opinion doesn't mean anything to me, I just find it interesting that some sects, especially ones who espouse doctrinal infallibility, pretend there is no creep in their doctrine when there obviously is.  The denial of change often leads to the burying of previously issued opinions, and/or the reinterpretation of a prior thesis (e.g. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/book_wood.pdf for an example).

At some point, the attempt to reconcile all previous published material leads to half-baked explanations:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Double “Huh?!”

---

My search for truth is much simpler, I let scripture interpret scripture:

Acts 17:26 “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.”

That is obviously a literal interpretation of Genesis by the New Testament (not to mention the New Testament also traces Jesus’ human genealogy back to Adam).  And from your Catholic point of view, that’s an interpretation with which St Augustine would have agreed.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Damned. When I see so much engagement to defend something (the biblical Genesis), that once upon a time could have been a great thing for humans to answer to the question of the origins and in the same time to base the moral values in reference of the working of the whole system since these origins, but which I find now, after what has been the evolution of the human being and of the sciences, totally obsolete, it makes me kinda sad.

And the fact to think that more and more people could turn themselves to this in the future because that will be far more simple and comfortable to them, and because people will abuse of the weakness of their mind, here it makes me kinda worrying.

Frankly, taking distance with texts, putting them in perspective with what learn us the observations of sciences, using all of this plus the feelings we have in order to try to understand our whole environment and so that to find some more pertinence to base our moral values than the story of Adam, or than the fact we would have to follow this because "God" said it to Mohamed for Muslims, or other stories from a huge past, seems to me to have far more perspective for future.

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

At best we will finish with as much perspectives as indians of Amazonian forest, stuck in their mind and in their environment, and so that we would have to hope that some "Spanish ETs" find us to stop to stick and to make our minds wider...

Frankly, I don't want to place my hope in some eventual Spanish ETs...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

You're fighting for "The Truth"?   now, that is rich!  since you've never bothered to take your sideline self to the frontlines, or even picked up a newspaper, let me clue you in:  it is Islam that wants to create the apocalypse by destroying Israel.  Christians like myself are simply warning you of that fact.

And once the Israeli/Muslim conflict boils over and turns your dream of living in a sideline utopia upside down, you'll be advocating the use of force against Israel:

"And they gathered the armies of the world together to the place called in Hebrew, Hill of Megiddo [Armageddon]." (Rev 16:12-16)

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

You're fighting for "The Truth"?   now, that is rich!  since you've never bothered to take your sideline self to the frontlines, or even picked up a newspaper, let me clue you in:  it is Islam that wants to create the apocalypse by destroying Israel.  Christians like myself are simply warning you of that fact.

And once the Israeli/Muslim conflict boils over and turns your dream of living in a sideline utopia upside down, you'll be advocating the use of force against Israel:

"And they gathered the armies of the world together to the place called in Hebrew, Hill of Megiddo [Armageddon]." (Rev 16:12-16)

Euh, pardon, but, sounds you give me a will that I've not.

Hey, I don't know, maybe I get nothing, maybe some fundamentalist Christians don't want apocalypse, maybe they're not fascinated by this, maybe they don't think it could be a mean for the return of Jesus. Maybe I'm all wrong. Maybe I'm not.

Anyway, by now I just see risks of fascination for a religious apocalypse in the future, as much by Christians as by Muslims, all of this because of all the sides of our context (economy, psychology, history...). But, if I think there could be chances for this fascination, the perspective of an apocalypse is not what I would personally prefer. Yes, I hope in perspectives for the future, and the best possible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Otherwise, if we continue in that way, at worst we will go straight to apocalypse, and we will think that anyway we fight for "The Truth" and so that it would be a great perspective because in the end a prophet will come back on Earth and carry peace and justice for eternity.

You're fighting for "The Truth"?   now, that is rich!  since you've never bothered to take your sideline self to the frontlines, or even picked up a newspaper, let me clue you in:  it is Islam that wants to create the apocalypse by destroying Israel.  Christians like myself are simply warning you of that fact.

And once the Israeli/Muslim conflict boils over and turns your dream of living in a sideline utopia upside down, you'll be advocating the use of force against Israel:

"And they gathered the armies of the world together to the place called in Hebrew, Hill of Megiddo [Armageddon]." (Rev 16:12-16)

Euh, pardon, but, sounds you give me a will that I've not.

Hey, I don't know, maybe I get nothing, maybe some fundamentalist Christians don't want apocalypse, maybe they're not fascinated by this, maybe they don't think it could be a mean for the return of Jesus. Maybe I'm all wrong. Maybe I'm not.

Anyway, by now I just see risks of fascination for a religious apocalypse in the future, as much by Christians as by Muslims, all of this because of all the sides of our context (economy, psychology, history...). But, if I think there could be chances for this fascination, the perspective of an apocalypse is not what I would personally prefer. Yes, I hope in perspectives for the future, and the best possible.

the only chance you're taking is ignoring reality