“The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists”
| March 20, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Creationism, Evolution, Religion, Science |
Here’s a quote from THE CHRISTIAN ORDER going back more than a decade:
The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists
Despite being widely accepted even at the highest level in the Church, there has never been any authoritative teaching approving of evolution. Hence the reaction of the worldwide media to the Pope’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 25th 1996. The ambiguous phrase that evolution is “more than just a theory” was greeted with glee by the materialistic press as an official admission of the collapse, under the weight of scientific research, of the Church’s traditional beliefs in Adam and Eve and any literal sense of Genesis.(37) Yet by no stretch of wishful thinking can the Pope’s message, arguably not even written by him personally, be considered a Magisterial teaching, still less an infallible new dogma of faith, overturning previous doctrine.
If John Paul II is unaware of the contemporary crisis in the credibility of evolution, this could be related to the fact that his 80 scientific advisors in the Academy are all evolutionists, including Fr. Stanley Jaki and the atheist cosmologist Stephen Hawking. This bias must severely limit the competence of the Academy to fulfil the stated intentions of Pope Pius IX, on its foundation in 1936, “… who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections.”(38) In his 1996 Message, John Paul reminded the Academy that the Magisterium has already made pronouncements on these matters, and cites the encyclical “Humani Generis” in which Pope Pius XII: “considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.” A comparison with the text shows that the Message paraphrases the encyclical in a subtle but misleading way and omits its explicit warning that the evolution of man must not be treated as certain fact.(39) It is also difficult to believe that “the opposing hypothesis,” which remains unnamed but is presumably Special Creation, can have been given “equal investigation and in-depth study” by the Pontifical Academy if there is not one expert on Creation Science included among its members! A prudent Catholic cannot regard such pronouncements, especially in the contemporary post-Vatican II context, as of sufficient weight to overturn two millenia of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings.
QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)?
99 Responses to “The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks, Tips. You know, you’re making the same mistake as the guy who invoked Godwin’s Law on me. These supposed “fallacies” you guys whip out are not always so cut and dry.
From your link:
I thought I attempted to establish a high likelihood of racism within the PAS, and dismiss at least the main alternative–racism within the papacy.
Do YOU have some likely alternate hypotheses for why there is only ~one black person in the PAS?
William A. Dembski: “QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists?”
Because the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world; this is why we are Protestants.
“Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)?”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-306100
“William Dembski, *No Free Lunch*, section 6.2, p. 314:
First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation…. intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as ‘common descent’ (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it. Intelligent design can live with that result and indeed live with it cheerfully.”
How theologically sound are your own ideas? Objectively speaking: Genesis is anti-common ancestry/descent; and the concept of evolution, as advocated by Darwin, presupposes the absence of Theos/ID—that is why transmutation by unintelligent-unguided material agency is proposed; and that is why all Atheists are Evolutionists. The concept of “evolution” was accepted on the firm belief that the concept seen in “ID” is absent from nature.
Since your comments are subjective, giving away the store, do not be surprised when Catholics do the same. To say the concept seen in “ID” is compatible with the concept seen in “creation” and “evolution-common descent” is the fusion of contrary or contradictory concepts or ideas (= confusion).
Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan Designist-species immutabilist.
In #31 AmerikanInKananaskis asks:
Name all of the world-famous scientists from Africa. Now, count the number of scientists from Africa on the PAS roster. I believe you will find that, if anything, scientists Africa are over-represented on the PAS.
Now, tell me how you know that the Americans, Italians, Germans, Russians, Poles, Brits, etc. on the PAS are not black (simply mentioning their last names does not count).
Well, here’s an example. I attend a public university that is very under-represented in terms of minorities, even more so than most universities. However, it wouldn’t be correct for me to simply state “well, the admissions board is obviously racist.” The reasons for my school’s demographics are a combination of complicated historical factors, socioeconomic inequalities among the different races, cultural problems, etc. I’m not claiming that it is a good thing, and it is likely that you can trace it down to racism at some point, but I am merely saying that you cannot conclude that it is due to simple racism at the institution in question. I would apply the same thinking to the PAS in this case.
In #32 Ray Martinez states:
Who’s “we”, Ray? The moderators and commentators on the blog? I seem to recall that at least one of the moderators is Catholic; what’s up with that, Ray?
Since when does “theological soundness” have anything to do with the scientific validity of ID (or any branch of the natural sciences, for that matter)?
In #32 Ray Martinez also asserts:
Is this true?
So you’re saying that this is a representative sampling of “good” black scientists and female scientists? There’s no higher-order discrimination going on here? That’d mean that only:
1.2% (=1/85) “good” scientists are black
7.1% (=6/85) of “good” scientists are female
I doubt that very much. And even if that were true, all it might show is that even at lower orders the Darwinian establishment is biased against people of color. (They never get the chance to become “good” scientists.)
Maybe. I don’t know what the statistics are for women and blacks in scientific research positions, but it is pretty common knowledge that they are both well under-represented when compared to their proportions in general society. Since 85 is such a small number when compared to the total number of scientists, you can’t expect the percentages to match up precisely.
I don’t know about the “Darwinian establishment” (whatever that is), but the U.S. educational system is definitely biased against women and people of color going into “hard” sciences. Again, most people think that this is a combination of historical discrimination, economic inequalities, and cultural disincentives to enter the fields. Certainly that would have an adverse effect on minority representation within science, without requiring outright racism in the way candidates to this committee are appointed.
AmerikanInKananaskis,
I may be wrong but I get the impression that at least women are very under-represented at web sites discussing ID. I guess nobody can judge the situation for other minorities but does anybody accuse UD of discriminating women or minorities.
R. Martinez (#29):
You wrote:
***
William A. Dembski: “QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists?”
[R. Martinez:] Because the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world; this is why we are Protestants.
*****************
1. Please specify exactly whom you are referring to as “we”.
2. Please provide documentation, i.e., written statements of doctrine and policy by official spokesmen for the Church of Rome, to prove that “the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world”.
T.
Interesting. It’s no surprise that all 80 are Darwinists – for the same reason that most biologists in secular American Protestant colleges that started out Christian are Darwinists as well. Does Baylor ring a bell?
OK, maybe not all of them are, but a significant majority are. You can’t have that secular scientific prestige while allowing the “Creatiists” to bring their “divine foot in the door.”
Allen MacNeill (#35): “Who’s ‘we’, Ray?”
Dr. Dembski and I and all other Protestants?
“I seem to recall that at least one of the moderators is Catholic; what’s up with that, Ray?”
I recall the same. I see nothing wrong with having moderators who are Cathlolic, Allen.
Ray
Timaeus (#41): “[R. Martinez:] Because the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world; this is why we are Protestants.”
Timaeus (#41): “1. Please specify exactly whom you are referring to as ‘we’.”
Dr. Dembski and I.
“2. Please provide documentation, i.e., written statements of doctrine and policy by official spokesmen for the Church of Rome, to prove that ‘the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world’.”
The evidence in this context is a Pontifical Academy consisting entirely of Evolutionists and Atheists.
You need to pay attention to the basic facts of this topic that have already been established.
Ray
CannuckianYankee (#42): “You can’t have that secular scientific prestige while allowing the ‘Creatiists’ [sic] to bring their ‘divine foot in the door.’”
Why would the Catholic Church object to a Divine Foot in their door?
This is why I said earlier that the Catholic Church is seeking to please and placate the world. My point applies equally to any Protestant Church as well. Any Church or any Christian who accepts Darwinism (= Materialism), for any reason, that is, the same theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes, is a Judas. And the Bible is clear: Judas did what he did while under the direct control of Satan. Now we know how and why “Christians” could accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts and not the Biblical explanation.
The Bible explains everything.
Ray
Ray,
How about Christians who accept that life is billions of years old, that common descent is true, etc., but who still believe God steps in to do some designing every so often? Are they under the direct control of Satan?
And before the bible? Was nothing explained?
And in countries where the bible is not a popular book? How do they get by?
That’s something of an extreme view you’ve got there Ray!
R. Martinez (#44):
So the pronoun “we” referred to you and William Dembski? And the reader was supposed to infer that, without explanation? I doubt very much that everyone picked that up. I suggest to you that it would have been clearer if you had written:
“… that is why you and I, Dr. Dembski, are Protestants.”
But leaving that complaint aside, back on Feb. 22, when you were again making a remark about Catholic teaching, you wrote:
“The Reform[a]tion said the Pope and the Vatican were totally corrupt. Nothing has changed. This is WHY we are Protestants.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ur-theory/
Did “we” there also refer to you and William Dembski? Or did it refer to you and someone else? Or was it perhaps the “royal we”? And whether it was Dr. Dembski or someone else or the “royal we”, how did you expect the reader to infer your meaning in that case?
I am trying to stress, Mr. Martinez, that the pronoun “we”, when used in conversation on the internet with a group of people who do not know each other personally, does not automatically have a clear antecedent. I for one would appreciate it if you would not use “we” again without explicit identification of the included parties, especially since I (and, I suspect, many other posters here, including many other Protestants) do not want to be part of your “we”.
As for your statement that “the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world”, it was stated without qualification. If you had added “with respect to the theory of evolution”, your statement would have been less offensive (though it would have remained very contestable, as it would still impute motivation, the inference of which is generally debatable). But you did not qualify the statement in any way. You therefore left it open to be taken as a general statement about the attitude of the Catholic Church toward “the world”, and followed it up with an apparently favourable reference to Protestants. Possibly you did not see how such a juxtaposition might appear to potential readers of your remark. Possibly you did not see that it could easily be taken to mean: “Catholics sell out to worldly values, but we Protestants stand fast for truly Christian beliefs”. If you did not foresee this interpretation, then take it as a piece of friendly advice (from someone who has been teaching writing skills to university students for 30 years now) that you need to be more careful in your expression.
I would not hesitate to give most UD commenters the benefit of the doubt in such cases. However, your attitude toward the Catholic Church is in doubt, since your earlier statement, which you have never retracted, inescapably implied that the Roman Church is currently (not just back in the Reformation days, but still now) “corrupt”. Corruption is a serious moral and spiritual charge. It should not be levelled without evidence. I do not believe John Paul II was “corrupt” when he issued his apparent endorsement of (guided) evolution. He may have been making a theoretical error, but we all make theoretical errors, and such errors do not make us “corrupt”. Further, the fact that you coupled the charge of current Catholic corruption with the words “that is WHY we are Protestants” could easily be taken to suggest the partisan view that only Protestants are serious about fighting corruption.
I would urge you to be somewhat more cautious in your language when making generalizations about forms of Christianity which are not your own. The general social rule, when speaking critically of the faiths of others, is to employ understatement. I suspect that this is a hard rule for you to observe, but I recommend that you try to do so.
T.
Madsen (#46): “How about Christians who accept that life is billions of years old, that common descent is true, etc., but who still believe God steps in to do some designing every so often? Are they under the direct control of Satan?”
Any Christian who accepts the concept of “common descent” (= ancestry) is also accepting the concept of “evolution.” This means they are either horribly ignorant or under the direct control of Satan since the objective claims of both concepts presuppose the absence of God from reality and the utter falsity of Genesis 1 and 2.
IF God is NOT involved with biological production the same is called Darwinism (evolution, natural selection, common ancestry; God-didn’t-do-it).
IF God IS involved with biological production the same is called Creationism (God-did-it).
Again, why would any Christian accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts and not the Biblical explanation?
I have answered this question (see msg.#45).
Ray
Timaeus (#47; quoting Ray Martinez): “This is why we are Protestants.”
My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged. I made a serious mistake by answering your “question” the first time.
The remainder of your very long winded post literally makes no sense based on the obvious fact that you are in a state of rage caused by the inability to address or refute anything that I actually said.
I will repeat: any Church, Catholic or Protestant, or any Christian (includes the Pope) who accepts the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes, is a Judas (or horribly ignorant) since the objective claims of evolution presuppose the veracity of Materialism (= Atheism) and Biblical falsity.
Ray
R. Martinez (#49):
We seem to have different notions of what a Christian is. I was brought up to believe that when Christians correct each other, it should be in the tone of loving mutual admonishment. I tried to adopt this tone in pointing out that some of your language could be taken as aggressive Protestant- boosting and partisan Catholic-bashing, even if you did not intend it in that way.
Your Christian response to my gentle admonishment was this:
“My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged.”
I cannot think that this is the manner in which Jesus would have wanted his disciples to talk to each other.
However, since, on a number of occasions, on several threads at UD, you have shown a propensity to talk to other Christians in this insulting way, I think the best thing for me to do is to give up this conversation, and leave you to your conscience, and to remind you that one of the Christian virtues is humility, and also that some of Jesus’s harshest words were directed against whoever would call his brother “fool” — a word which is reminiscent of the phrase “mentally challenged”.
Just for the record, I wish to deny a claim which, in various posts, you have strongly intimated (even if you have never made it explicitly). The Church of Rome has never accepted “the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes”. The position of the Roman Church is that it is permissible (not mandatory, but permissible) for Roman Catholics to believe in various hypotheses of biological evolution, provided that the evolutionary process is understood to be, at least in certain key respects, guided by God. Dawkins, on the other hand, insists that evolution is not just a permissible hypothesis but a certain fact, and he denies that the evolutionary process is guided by anything; further, he denies the existence of God. You are free to reject any form of evolution at all, if you wish, and you are free to criticize the Roman Church for permitting belief in evolution even in a carefully qualified sense; but to say or even intimate that the Roman position is the same as Dawkins’s is to promote a falsehood. Whether this falsehood proceeds from a lack of knowledge of the relevant Church documents on your part, or from some animus connected with your unretracted statement that the Catholic Church is “corrupt”, or from some other cause, I cannot say.
T.
Allen MacNeill (#26):
You wrote:
“So, anyone want to try to explain how an organization that contains not one evolutionary biologist (and is apparently low on biologists in general) is biased toward “evolutionists”?”
Allen, you’re being just plain silly.
You know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of biologists, in all fields of biology, not just “evolutionary biology”, supports neo-Darwinian evolution, so any selection of biologists, unless it takes care to consciously ensure a balance of views (for example, by inviting Behe and Denton to join the panel), is going to be biased in favour of neo-Darwinism.
But while we’re on the subject of allegedly important specializations within biology, I’d like to lodge a complaint (though I’m not hopeful that you’ll break your streak of refusing to answer my posts). Often critics of ID have complained that Behe has no business writing about evolution because he is “only a molecular biologist” and not an “evolutionary biologist”. Yet I have never heard a single critic of ID complain that Ken Miller has no business writing about evolution because he is “only a cell biologist” and not an “evolutionary biologist”. And I’ve never heard them complain that Eugenie Scott is “only an anthropologist” or that Barbara Forest is “only a philosopher” or that Robert Pennock is “only a philosopher and computer scientist” or that Jason Rosenhouse is “only a mathematician” or that Brian Alters is “only a general biologist and education theorist” or that Nick Matzke is “only a geographer” (his highest degree to date being a Master’s in geography). There is a double standard operating here, no?
T.
Timaeus (#51): “We seem to have different notions of what a Christian is. I was brought up to believe that when Christians correct each other, it should be in the tone of loving mutual admonishment. I tried to adopt this tone in pointing out that some of your language could be taken as aggressive Protestant- boosting and partisan Catholic-bashing, even if you did not intend it in that way.”
I agree that Christians are obligated to be kind to one another and to speak the truth in love. In other words we are to treat others how Christ has treated us. You did not comply. You presupposed Catholic-bashing on my part, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. Legitimate criticism is not bashing. I attacked position and the institution, not the man or the congregation. I have also extended my criticism to include Protestantism.
“Your Christian response to my gentle admonishment was this:
‘My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged.’”
Okay….I should have not said as such. I should have said that you had made a mistake. I apologize. Your mistake is shown below:
Message #50:
“Timaeus (#47): So the pronoun ‘we’ referred to you and William Dembski? And the reader was supposed to infer that, without explanation?
[Ray Martinez:] Since I was replying to William Dembski and since he is a well known Protestant, of course [see #32].”
“The position of the Roman Church is that it is permissible (not mandatory, but permissible) for Roman Catholics to believe in various hypotheses of biological evolution, provided that the evolutionary process is understood to be, at least in certain key respects, guided by God.”
Can you support this claim?
“Dawkins….denies that the evolutionary process is guided by anything….”
That is the number one objective claim of evolutionary theory since it was accepted in 1859.
You do not seem to understand that the concept of “evolution” presupposes natural or material causation. Natural-material means that God or supernatural is absent and not involved. IF God is INvolved with biological production we already have terms that designate: Creationism-ID.
To say one can (subjectively) believe anything about evolution reveals jaw dropping ignorance since the concept was accepted as not being guided by Mind. Again, IF Mind is involved with biological production this is called Creationism or Intelligent design.
The whole point of evolution since 1859 is that God is not involved.
Once God is accepted as having a role IN biological production the same is also called Theism. Darwinism presupposes Deism-Atheism (= no role for God).
This is 101 stuff, come on.
Ray
R. Martinez: “Why would the Catholic Church object to a Divine Foot in their door?”
Well, I think it’s because the Catholic heirarchy does something that is rather peculiar – they separate faith issues from issues of science – as if there need be a separation. And this is precisely why IDists in general get accused of being Creationists – their opponents fail to see them separating faith from reason. This is because they don’t. Faith is compatible with reason.
Darwinists are ok with people of faith as long as those people acknowledge that their faith is not reasonable. Most serious Bible-believing Christians are not willing to allow that separation. It appears that when one calls themselves a Christian but does not think seriously about their theology and its implications, it’s quite easy to believe anything that does not conform to reason. This is how heresy begins. It is a separation of faith from reason. This is what the early Church fought against.
Post Modernism has also had a strong influence on modern Christianity, and people accept “spirituality” for spirituality’s sake, even if their given spirituality does not conform to reason. And there are others who believe that the only virtuous spirituality is that which does not conform to reason.
Given the unorthodox doctrines that spill out of the Catholic Church like holy water, it’s easy to see how theological reasonableness has been flooded out of the church, leaving it vulnerable to “every wind of doctrine,” even if it is counter to Christian doctrine.
This is not an attack on Catholics per say, as I know some very good Catholic Christians – but the heirarchy of Catholicism has never had its mandate directly from God as it claims, and this is where I think the error begins.
Without “sola scriptura” it is easy to stray from orthodoxy. The only true Christian authority is scripture itself, and it is scripture that opposes the doctrines of Darwinism.
Oh dear, it appears that I must revisit this site to explain Catholicism’s position on evolution and a few other things.
Officially: Pope Pius X is the only pope to speak about it in an official capacity, meaning that he is the only one to raise the issue in an encyclical (Humani Generis). What he said was this: Catholics may not believe in materialistic evolution, meaning that IF they accept macro evolution, (and they need not), they must accept the proposition that God creates the human soul directly and not through a naturalistic process. That means that Catholics may NOT believe in unguided macro-evolution. Further, they must also affirm that we were preceded by SINGULAR first parents (Adam and Eve), which means that current versions of theistic evolution, many of which posit multiple first parents, are also forbidden.
Unofficially: Pope John Paul II did seem a little more open to macro-evolution than was Pius X, but he too insisted that Catholics may not propose materialistic unguided evolution. His famous statement that it is “more than a theory,” referred to guided evolution only and did not, in any way, support Dawkins’ position.
Benedict XVI, on the other hand, takes a position much closer to that of Pope Pius X, saying outright that Darwinism has NOT been proven. Further, he even spoke of an “intelligent project,” which clearly argues against the ridiculous atheistic idea that design is an illusion.
Is there corruption in the Catholic Church? To answer that question, one must first understand the Church’s composition. For Catholics, the Church is BOTH Divine and human.
It is “Divine” insofar as it has been given the task of teaching the truth and leading souls infallibly toward the way of sanctification. In that context, it cannot be corrupted. No teaching has ever changed in over two thousand years.
It is “human” insofar as it is populated by sinners who often violate its teachings and shame its founder. In that context, it has been corrupted several times, sometimes seriously. In fact, The Catholic Church has fallen to great lows and risen to great heights throughout history. In the fourth century, it almost fell under the weight of the Arian heresy. The situation was so bad at one time that the majority of the bishops had embraced the very doctrine that they had been commissioned to contend against. Many of them appeared to have lost their faith. Still, one man, St. Athanasius, almost single-handedly rescued the Church and brought it back to sanity.
Something similar happened in the tenth century with the East-West split, and again, five hundred years later during the time of the reformation. The Catholic Church is always falling down and always getting back up. Even so, there is no getting around the fact that, by a country mile, it has done more for the world than any other institution. Yes, it has had its flaws, abuses, and even outrages, but for every corrupt pope you can name, and there were a few, I can show you ten more who became saints who died as martyrs. I can also show you thousands of everyday Catholics who rose to the level of heroic virtue.
When I say “saint,” I am not talking about “nice” people who know how to hold their cup at tea time. I am talking about men who were both strong enough to become warrior King’s and humble enough to clean bed pans for lepers; reformers who slept one hour a night for decades while converting whole nations to Christianity; mystics who prayed sixteen hours a day and bore Christ’s wounds on their hands and feet as a means of compensating for the sins of the world.
You might also be interested to know that the Catholic Church was not slack in making the world a more livable place. For starters, it launched the modern science project and built a little thing called Western Civilization. If you would like to confirm that, consult a few responsible scholars who don’t have a chip on their shoulder. (Two good people to begin with would be Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods. They don’t whitewash anything.) You might also be interested to know that the Catholic Church wrote the very same scriptures that you are trying to use as your main weapon of attack. Were you under the impression that this book just fell out of the sky?
This up and down cycle continues to this day. During the 1950’s the Catholic Church was a positive moral force to be reckoned with and even put the fear of God into Hollywood. Whenever a good institution starts accomplishing things, bad people do their best to destroy it. If they can’t do it from the outside, they will infiltrate it and try to get the job done on the inside. Today, the Church has been compromised in exactly that way and is indeed in the middle of its most serious crisis.
Perhaps most noticeable is its recent tendency to de-emphasize its universal teachings (they never change), take the easy road, and look for ways to fit in with the world. That is why some U.S. Bishops (not all) have neglected Catholic seminaries and Catholic universities. It is also why many church leaders tolerated illegal immigration, remained silent in the face of sex scandals, and allowed this ridiculous conference on evolution. Yes, we can also throw in those misguided sycophants who think that Christ’s teachings can be reconciled with Darwin’s materialism. Even at this low point, however, Catholics still probably do more good than harm.
One thing all anti-Catholics must explain: How did such an evil institution last for over two thousand years? How is it that it was on the brink of death three other times, and rose to become stronger than ever? If it wasn’t Divine, it would have gone under long ago. Right now, the human side is having its day, but, just as in that past, a few saints will rescue it and restore it to its original beauty. That is the way it has always been and always will be until the end of time.
With regard to the comment on “sola Scriptura,” there is an equally egregious misunderstanding.
The idea of the “Bible alone” (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture.
—–”[O]n this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19).
—–”He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
—–”I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
—–”[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13).
—–”So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
—–”[I]f I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:14-15).
Sola Scriptura is a man-made invention. The whole idea obviously refutes itself. If “sola scriptura” is the rule of faith, then we should not accept it since it is not in the Bible. On the contrary, according to the Bible, it is the Church which is “the bulwark of the truth.” According to the Bible, Christians are to accept BOTH Sacred Tradition and the written Scriptures as the infallible word of God.
StephenB, there are lots of “sacred” traditions out there. How do you know that yours is the correct one?
…”there are lots of “sacred” traditions out there. How do you know that yours is the correct one?”
Do you know of any other “sacred traditions” that were started by someone who claimed to be God, identified himself as “the truth,” and then raised himself from the dead?
R. Martinez (#53):
I accept the apology. Note, however, that after apologizing, you continue in the same aggressive vein, speaking of the “jaw dropping ignorance” of people who disagree with you (whether that is meant for me, or the Catholic Church, or both, I’m not sure). And at the end, speaking as if you are a teacher and I a slow student, you write, “This is 101 stuff, come on.” This disrespectful, belittling mode of speaking is never constructive.
Fortunately, my feelings are not that easily bruised, and I will not ask for any further personal apology, but you have a bigger apology still to make, to Catholics who might have been offended by this:
“The Reform[a]tion said the Pope and the Vatican were totally corrupt. Nothing has changed.”
This implies that the Pope and the Vatican are still “totally corrupt”. You still refuse to withdraw this remark. You do not even seem to grasp how insulting it is. And yes, I know that you did not target the average Catholic with the remark (though you did target the Pope, who is not just an abstract office but a Catholic individual); nonetheless, you issued a blanket, absolute condemnation of institutions that Catholics hold dear. Unless you can prove that these institutions are “corrupt”, this is nothing less than a gratuitous insult. It is still a form of Catholic-bashing.
It is perhaps possible that you do not know the meaning of the word “corrupt”, that you do not realize how deep and hurtful a charge it is. It is possible that you think that “corrupt” means simply “theologically liberal” or “intellectually faulty in doctrine”, or “morally imperfect”, or “religiously flawed”. If so, you need to avail yourself of several good dictionaries and thesauruses, and try to get the feel of this word. And then, once you know what the word means, you should either prove the corruption charge, or retract the claim, with apologies to any Catholic readers who might have been offended by it. Even if no one was actually offended, the sheer love of truth demands a retraction, since the claim is false.
As for your remarks about evolution, intelligent design, and so forth, while many of them are correct, others are wrong or misleading, due to your lack of knowledge of the primary sources and/or your lack of terminological precision. However, I will not take the time to explain your errors, or discuss evolution or ID with you again, on this or any other thread, until I see an unambiguous and apologetic retraction of the above anti-Catholic comment. I don’t want to harp on this subject any more, and will not return to it again.
T.
At this very moment I read in the Catholic newspaper in Western Australia an article which reports that the Vatican (via a spokesperson) says (in brief) that the theory of evolution is “science”, intelligent design is “faith” not science. Obviously ID has a long way to go as a scientific theory if its most likely supporter rejects it’s basis as “science”.
Stephen, that Jesus raised himself from the dead is a matter of faith: it is true to the believer but false to those who aren’t of that faith. Just because that claim is made doesn’t prove that Christianity is the one true sacred tradition, and all the rest is false.
There are no tools for us collectively to decide religions have true metaphysical belief. One can choose to believe in the dogma of a particular religion as an act of faith, but choosing to believe as an act of faith is not the same as establishing the truth of something. Others who choose to believe different religions are just as sure for themselves as you are sure for yourself, and there is no objective way to decide if anyone (or no one) is right.