Faithful Remnant wrote: Lance, if the RCC was reasoning from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God in these discussions with Muslims, I could certainly give my approval, but I don't see this occuring.
If that approach were taken, the talks would break down at once.
Faithful Remnant wrote: Give it time and we may see the Roman church cease to exist as it is amalgamated with Islam into some new kind of eclectic religion.
If you think that, you have absolutely no understanding of the Roman church.
Neil wrote: Why should I believe that's merely his opinion? Are you free to pick & choose which of his statements are opinion, and which are ex cathedra?
The occasions on which the pope may speak ex cathedra are extremely limited.
And no, I am not free to pick and choose which are ex cathedra.
There are, nevertheless, Catholics who mistakenly think they can pick and choose if they don't like something -- JPs declaration that women can never be priests, for example, or Paul VI's condemnation of artificial contraception.
Both these declarations were in line with Catholic tradition. Any statement on evolution is likely to be unrelated to Catholic tradition.
To answer your last question: Just about any view that God created the world and everything in it from nothing, regardless of how he did it, fits the Catechism. Theistic evolution is one of those possible views.
Neil wrote: Good point, FR. Lance, JP2 said, "evolution is more than just a hypothesis." Then is it any less than a fact, & if so, what is this third sort of "knowledge?"
JP2 is permitted to express his own opinion. Just because he was pope doesn't make his opinion doctrine. In fact, I would venture that no pope can declare infallibly on evolution one way or the other, since it is outside the competence of the RCC, and is not part of its tradition.
Some commentators on this thread seem determined to prove the the RCC teaches evolution. It doesn't. It has no teaching on the subject. As a Catholic I'm free to make up my own mind about evolution and still remain in good standing in the Church.
Neil wrote: RCC Catechism #337: "...Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day."
Yes, and that is as far as it goes. Individual Catholics are free to make up their own minds about what the details of Genesis 1 mean.
One symbolic point is God's need to "rest". After all, God doesn't get tired.
Yes, FR, the article is wrong. But you tend to expect reporters to get at least something wrong when they write on religion.
The RCC teaches that God created the universe and everything in it from nothing.
Incidentally, if the Genesis account is to be taken as literal scientific fact, how do Fundamentalists explain that God created light (Gen. 1:3) before he created the sun, moon and stars (Gen. 1:14-17)?
I think it can be explained while still taking Genesis literally, but I'm wondering what the biblical-literal explanation is.
Mr. Hawking is entitled to his own opinions. The RCC is not committed to them simply because they are the opinions of Mr. Hawking. Nor is there any reason his opinions should make him persona non grata at the Vatican.
And no, the RCC does not teach theistic evolution or any other type of evolution. It has no teaching on evolution, as that is irrelevant to salvation.
Neil wrote: "In Germany, Protestant and Roman Catholic citizens pay some 9 percent of their income tax to the church or local parish. Around 70 percent of church revenues come from taxes, which the diocese is free to spend on anything church-related."
That's why many Germans declare that they have no religion. It saves them taxation.
And I think it's a problem for the churches, because then the state feels it has a right interfere in church affairs.
overcomer401965 wrote: Then why doesnt the RCC heed to Peters own words that were given to him by God. Foreasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, form your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ. 1 Peter 1:18-19. Dont tell me they dont because I work with many Fillipino and they are still paying for prayers for there grandfathers and such in "purgatory".
Well, I won't tell you they don't believe in purgatory and pray for those in purgatory, because they do. And so do I.
If purgatory contradicted Peter's words, the RCC wouldn't teach purgatory. After all, the RCC knows more about scripture than anyone else.
enough already wrote: If Christ had intended on building the church on Peter, He would have specifically said, 'upon YOU PETER'; why would Jesus tell Peter, 'thou art Peter', didn't Peter already know what his name was?
Peter already knew what his name was: Simon.
Jesus was giving him a new name to reflect his future role: Kepha (which is Petros when translated into Greek, and Rock when translated into English).
enough already wrote: Lance, it wasn't until the tenth century, when the eastern and western churches split, that there was anything known as a Roman Catholic Church, a thousand years after the fact.
You seem to be focusing on the word "Roman". There has been a Catholic Church, headed by the pope in Rome, representative of Christ, since the time of the apostles.
(Thou are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church.)
Adding the word "Roman" to distinguish it from false claimants is a recent phenomenon.
Zachary wrote: Are you sure it's fair to ask GG and Lance to use Scripture to prove anything, when half their proof (and truth) comes from the pope and his pals at the Vat??
Zachary is right. I (and presumably GG) reject the man-made tradition of Bible only. We follow the traditions of the Church that Christ founded.
Christ founded a visible Church that would teach. He didn't ask his disciples to write a few books and letters after he had gone, with the hope that future generations might be able to work everything out for themselves by reading them.
Jim Lincoln wrote: [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-314.htm]]]Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: An Overview[/URL] plus [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-315.htm]]]Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: Catholic Dogma, Pt. 1[/URL] and [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-316.htm]]]Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship: Catholic Dogma, Pt. 2[/URL].
I suppose John Macarthur means well, but he really doesn't understand anything.
ENGINEER wrote: The Marian Apparitions plan to unite all religions under the Roman Catholic Church.
Not quite, Engineer. There is no way that the RCC would wish to unite all religions under its own banner, since all religions apart from the RCC contain falsehood.
The hope is that all religions, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, will come to be abandoned in favour of Catholicism.
God seems to have intervened in the writing of the Koran, since Mary is mentioned in it more than any other woman. This may have been his way of preparing Muslims to recognize the truth of the Catholic Church.
The realization of this still lies in the future. (But there are straws in the wind.)
Incidentally, one or two of the apparitions mentioned in the article you link to are regarded as false by the RCC.
11/8/08 5:20 PM
