On October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II made a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.”
The Popes statement was made in French and said, “Aujourd'hui, pres d'un demisiecle apres la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaisances condesuisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'*une* hypothese.”
Pope John Paul ll liked to be thought of as 'scientifically' up-to-date, but he was not a scientist; he was a philosopher by training and secondly a theologian. Because he was not a scientist, was the pope persuaded by scientific advisers; of not, then are we to asuume this was Pope John 11's infalibillity?
After Galileo, any Pope must be careful disputing new scientific ideas. However John Paul seems to have learned the wrong lesson. In Galileo's time the Roman Catholic church had adopted pagan Ptolemaic and Aristotelian ideas. Galileo's discoveries challenged those pagan deas, not the Bible. Opposition to Galileo, which influenced the Pope and the Inquisition came from the Aristotelians at the University. The church in those days made the mistake of trying to fit the Bible into Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories; now in this case Pope John Paul ll seems to have made the same mistake of trying to fit the Bible into Darwinism theory.
DavidJ
Pope John Paul II slipped into senility, and its unclear when he was truly lucid of his own accord, and when he was not.
Popes are fallible men, and often very poor authorities on Scripture. They, like politicians, are surrounded by Press secretaries, Advisors, Speech Writers, etc. Even when they "say" they wrote something, oftentimes it will be his deputies (who are skilled / adept in Papal rulings, etc.) and not himself who truly writes the speech.
The sad truth is that there are as many atheists in the Vatican, as there are believers. And even these are both outnumbered by polytheists, and agnostics. Vatican politics is about humanism and politics. Were it not, the entire evil of child predators in the priesthood, and rampant homosexuality, would have been purged out of the priesthood centuries ago. True Catholics are loyal first to the papacy and its government, and not to Christ...hence, true Catholics are not true Christians, for many men precede their allegiance to Christ, and in his name, rule over them.
Hence, devoutly true Roman Catholics are as great in hypocrisy as Pharisaic Judaism was...and they are called Universalists or "Catholics" because they follow that same broad or euruchoros way that leads souls to damnation.
The goal of a true Christian is to be a true Christian...Catholicism demands obeisance to those who wish to physically, spiritually, politically, financially, and socially prey upon you like a five-fold vampire. Rape is rape, be it upon the body or soul...so why swear allegiance to a predator or the system which enforces their rights to prey on you and others, and tosses you aside to be crushed?
The sayings of Nietzche in "crushing all human sentiment and all emotion" and forging an iron will upon the masses, was learned at the train whistle-stop of Innsbruck (gateway to Vienna and the Austria-Hungarian Empire) by an altar-boy later victimized by this institution as a teenager, and who bore its fruit as an adult. I have addressed this history elsewhere at the JFJ Forum. We all know this man's adult name: Adolf Hitler.
Well di Hitler learn from the greatest practicers of Nietsche and Psychology in the world...the RCC government.
Question is: will the Anti-Christ be another victim of R.C.C. molestation / sodomy as probably was Hitler? That's a different kind of evolution to also worry about.
Most Catholics just do not know better. May they find the will and the patience to follow Christ Saviour, Messiah Jesus, and not fallible men.
Take it easy, DavidJ...and try not to get high blood pressure reporting the RCC stuff. Shalom.
On October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II made a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.”
There is a lot of equivocation on the word "evolution". Natural selection, also called "evolution" is an observable fact. It is why elephants are now mostly tuskless, and why sickle cell anemia flourishes in Africa. Furthermore, evolution clearly plays a role in recent differentiation of lifeforms. Materialist theories on the origin of Life and the Origin of Species are also called "evolution". The pope acknowledged this, but also reiterated the Biblical position on the Origin of Life - that it was by divine decree ("and God said").
Young earthers are not happy with that, but they need to define what kind of time they are talking about. The age of the earth is established by things like uranium crystals decaying into thorium and lead. The crystal was pure uranium at formation, and the half life of uranium is known. The "apparent age" argument may be true, but the age given by such crystals is still the scientific age, and the only age meaningful for talking about how the world works.
of not, then are we to asuume this was Pope John 11's infalibillity?
No, because this was hardly ex cathedra.
After Galileo, any Pope must be careful disputing new scientific ideas. However John Paul seems to have learned the wrong lesson. In Galileo's time the Roman Catholic church had adopted pagan Ptolemaic and Aristotelian ideas. Galileo's discoveries challenged those pagan deas, not the Bible. Opposition to Galileo, which influenced the Pope and the Inquisition came from the Aristotelians at the University. The church in those days made the mistake of trying to fit the Bible into Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories; now in this case Pope John Paul ll seems to have made the same mistake of trying to fit the Bible into Darwinism theory.
Actually, Pope Urban was sympathetic to Galileo, having looked through Galileo's telescope and observed the mountains of the moon and the moons of Jupiter for himself (Aristotle claimed that the heavenly bodies were perfect spheres). He protected Galileo to the end. He did advise not directly antagonizing the Aristotelians, but to adopt the humble posture of Copernicus ("See, if you just *pretend* the Sun is the center then the math is simpler!").
Galileo ignored this advice, and wrote a dialog with a character named "Simplicio" to represent his opponents. Nevertheless, Pope Urban was still able to save Galileo's career until Galileo decided to get all theological. He claimed that that seven planets (all that were observed at the time) were the seven branches of the Heavenly Minora. His theology was really bad, and his opponents ripped it to shreds, and got him condemned as a heretic (for the bad theology).
Nevertheless, Pope Urban was able to save Galileo's life, and Galileo lived the rest of his days under house arrest in comparative luxury. Although forbidden to publish, his friends sneaked his manuscripts out and as contraband, they received greater readership than they would have as yet another Church Approved publication.
of not, then are we to asuume this was Pope John 11's infalibillity?
No, because this was hardly ex cathedra.
[/quote]
Your playing pedantics with truth!
[/quote]
If you want to convince anyone, or even on (extrememly rare) occasions learn something yourself, you have to stop shooting at straw men and graduate to real targets. Your constant jibes concerning "papal infallibility" are drawing laughter from all but the completely ignorant because so far, absolutely none of your examples (and although I'm new I've gone back through the lists here) concern actual papal infallibility as claimed by Roman Catholics. Don't be too embarrassed, you are not alone. Eric Svendsen builds a similar case to yours in
"Upon this Slippery Rock". He is actually a very good scholar, and goes into excruciating detail about all the evil, stupid, and ludicrous things Popes have done and said through the millennia. All that research, all that scholarship, all wasted on a straw man, because Eric, like you, confused papal infallibility with papal inerrancy. It pays to know your enemy before commencing your attack.
This changes nothing - the Pope was wrong inspite of his infallible Bull and Gallileo was right! It is absolute hypocricy to claim the Pope saved Gallieo's life when it was the Pope who was the threat to this completely innocent mans life. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so judicially perverted!
As I've mentioned several times, papal bulls are not infallible, and you make yourself sound ridiculous when you keep referring to them as such. The Aristotelians were Galileo's enemy, not Pope Urban. The story is a lot more complex than Galileo against the Church. You might benefit from some more detailed accounts, such as
Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius. You can read Galileo's writings yourself (in translation) and feel the frustration that fueled his unwise behaviour in
Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo.
here is a good summary of Galileo's life. This summary mentions that Pope Urban was mad at Galileo because an argument he had given to Galileo was put into the mouth of Simplicio - and hence he blocked a full pardon of Galileo.