None of u can give me a Bible verse. All you keep saying is catechism and tradition. Is Catechism better than the Bible? Y read mystical city of God when the Bible is there? All Catholics say are things written by men/ saints/ pope but can't defend with the Bible!
What the heck? This is so wrong...this is not at all what Papal Infallibility is about. I'm sick and tired by people who have no idea what the Church says about Scripture and Papal infallibility and then make these incredibly wrong claims about them. So disappointing...
@equitemcroce I think you will find that this video is just what Papal Infallibility is about. Nothing said here is incorrect. It is all in the Vatican's Wiki page and they should know! Ordinary RC's are just not taught this dogma as it is too unbelievable for even the most uneducated. If I am wrong please tell me .
Problem is the Vatican know's it is wrong too and they can't do a thing about it. Pope Pius IX was warned but he was 90 years old and the French were at the door!
@Euphobia2 There are so many caricatured and simply wrong statements about the Church here that it is hard to know where to begin...I think one of the major problems is an unstated, but clearly implied, poor epistemological assumption which threads this clip together. The assumption is that all forms of knowledge can only be acquired through science (post-Galilean) which is a narrow and closed minded way of approaching the discovery of Truth.
I challenge you to say exactly where the video is 'wrong' I have a superb RC education and I know my catechism backwards! If quoting the catechism is 'wrong' where does one start? The problem is that Catholics think they know their religion but they don't. I didn't! It was only when I started to actually look at the dogma that I realized it was nonsense. I await your reply with interest. Plain English please.
@Euphobia2 For starters which "laws" were set in stone by Constantine in 325? Because you should know that he didn't set the laws of Christianity at all. You claim that the Church never thought that its doctrines would be put in question? Really? What about the "questio" format of the Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas? Where do you think Thomas got his "objections" and "questions" in the first place (I am referring to his Summa here)?
@equitemcroce First I appreciate your time in answering. You do put up a pretty good show. I am not sure how far I'll get but I'll respond to a few. Yes Constantine did set the laws for current Christianity as you know. He got all the myths together and sorted out an official version. Aguinas did indeed encourage questioning but he also said if a fact was found to be wrong then it was correct to change one's opinion. I think you would find Aquinas would be an atheist today. See Wiki for ref.
@Euphobia2 I suggest you start going to primary sources and not only to wiki as it is not the most reliable source. Actually read Aquinas' summa and quinque viae. If you haven’t already done so, I suggest you do it in a course because wiki will not be able to provide you the knowledge and understanding that a formal course with a good class and professor can provide. And I doubt Aquinas would be an atheist because he would not divorce faith and reason
@Euphobia2 Please tell me which laws were set in place by Constantine? Your claim here lacks serious scholarly work to back it up. I’m sorry but it is just wrong as a historical fact and is just puzzle history: trying to put facts together with no causation to prove that they are correlated. From a historical-critical perspective, that is a seriously flawed methodology which is unscientific. Church councils established many of the rules and doctrines before the guy was born.
@Euphobia2 Constantine continued: Of course, anybody who understands Catholic doctrine would know that even someone like Constantine could provide some theological insights and contribute to the Tradition of the Church. So even if it were true, it wouldn’t mean much...but it isn’t true so this wrong claim should not be promulgated because it is wrong as a historical fact.
@Euphobia2 Also, in 1870 the Pope did not invent the doctrine, it was simply defined. In other words, the Church was bound by Papal infallibility since the time Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not since 1870. People contest it...ok, but you should at least understand this fact if you claim to understand RC doctrine.
@equitemcroce In 1870 Pius IX did indeed set all the doctrines in stone. Nothing was allowed to be redefined after that date! This is the problem. Usually religions change subtly with the times if they are to survive. We are not in the Stone Age. Papal Infallibility was a new dogma. Jesus may or may not have given Peter the 'keys' but he didn't say that Peter's descendants had a 'hotline' to heaven! Pius IX did that! It was a mistake and a'mistake' that cannot be corrected.
The 1870 issue: read what I was saying carefully. I said that Papal infallibility is actually a doctrine that dates back to Jesus as it can be documented in the Gospel of Matthew chapter: “what you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven etc”...so Catholic interpretation would say that Heaven would not err therefore, what is bound by the Pontiff reflects a deep truth establish not by the Pope but by the author of Truth: God. This is perfectly coherent and you should recognize this.
1870 continued: so yes, in some cases (which are very rare) the Holy Spirit will protect the office of the Pope (or the Church in a full ecumenical council) from error. And again, I have to protest the way you portray the intentions of Catholics. We do not follow the Church because we are trying to justify the unjustifiable, we follow it because we believe it brings us the Truth (remember, the Truth is a person for Christians).
“Usually religions change subtly with the times if they are to survive”
If by religion you mean the truths held by these religions (and not just the rites or the methods of devotion), then such religions would be nonsense. Seriously, what kind of a pathetic excuse of a religion would claim to change the truth because it is worried for “survival”. I hold my religion to a much higher standard and am not afraid (and no it is not painful) of the Truth.
@Euphobia2 And why does Evolution disprove the existence of Adam? Did you ever read Pius XII Humani Generis on this matter? If it is read correctly, you will realize that the Pope is actually saying that there is more that we do not know than we do know. All that we know is that Adam existed but the material understanding of this is truly far from clear.
@equitemcroce DNA proves without doubt that there has never been a 'first human man or woman' as defined in the bible. Not possible! This can be proved scientifically! So there was No 'Sin" and without that 'Sin" the whole meaning of the religion falls apart. PiusXIi was just making the best of a bad job and he wasn't around for the discovery of DNA. We know that Adam and Eve didn't exist. Your statement that they 'do' is incorrect and wishful thinking as you know they must! They don't.
@Euphobia2 Adam and Eve: I did not intend you to bother yourself trying to explain DNA evidence. I understand this quite well (I studied and currently am studying genetics). My question was actually made so you could understand what Pius XII was saying concerning Adam and Eve. The Pope was making a statement for “true” humans: meaning that if another animal had a body like mine but no soul, he would not be human in a Catholic understanding. Pius’ discussion concerns the soul cont...
Adam and Eve continued: Pius actually says he doesn’t know how it happened that God gave Adam the first soul. And this brings us back to Papal infallibility. As you probably know (I hope wiki at least mentions this), for a Pope to speak infallibly, the statements must concern matters of faith and morals. the Pope and the Church are not scientific institutions, their authority is NOT on matters of science. So the Pope has no real intention in claiming any authority over scientific findings.
@Euphobia2 And up to know I was speaking in plain English. Only if I said something like this could you imply that I wasn’t: what is known is known, because what is known infallibly can only be True and Truth cannot contradict itself. If it is demonstrated that our knowledge is wrong, then there is no point in claiming it to be true. What I said here may sound like a joke (and I intended it to be read like that) but there is an actual point to behind it cont...
@equitemcroce I found that particular post incomprehensible. Priests are very good at platitudinous sermons where they say nothing in long words for hours but it sounds good and confuses the congregation. According to the dogma 'Adam & Eve' were the first humans God created. They were not. Now move on! Take the paradigm Shift and 'move on'. Trying to pretend that God did somehow create this couple is not helping you. The Pope is an ordinary man with no hotline to a God. He just thinks he is!
@Euphobia2 BTW, I am not a preist (just to be clear as one of you posts seems to have indirectly brought up the issue) and my “incomprehensible post” was a joke...but a joke with a purpose.
@Euphobia2 It’s not just Papal infallibility that binds us to believe certain doctrines. The idea is that Truth cannot contradict itself. Something true in 200 AD is true in 2011 AD. The responsibility owed to that Truth, the understanding of that Truth, the variations of how that Truth affects us etc...these things change according to time and circumstance but we cannot contradict the Truth.
@Euphobia2 If somehow, we fully prove that Christ did not exist...then it's game over for us. There’s no manipulation of the facts, there’s no attempting to fit things that don't fix. We would be wrong...so stop portraying the Pope and many believers as disingenuous. As believers we owe our duty and our life to the Truth...maybe people should start realizing that our endeavor is genuine.
@equitemcroce I do not think the evidence that Jesus existed would stand up in a current court of law. We know that 'Adam & Eve' do not exist, so No 'Sin' and No need for a Jesus. The game as you say is over but it is not generally realized. I admire you for saying this as it must be difficult. It was for me but I made the 'shift'. Humans have to rely on ourselves to save the planet. There is no afterlife. This is it.
Concerning Jesus, you claim that his existence would not hold up in a court of law? It’s funny, because we have more documents and evidence to believe that Christ existed than that Constantine existed and yet you take the existence of Constantine for granted. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Constantine existed, I’m just trying to point out the incoherence in your line of thought.
@equitemcroce@equitemcroce Glad you appreciated it! But millions of people seriously believe this happened. They would be excommunicated if they didn't. The Pope said it happened. It is not in the bible! But if she had been lifted into space bodily she would still be there and in space time not too far away.
This doctrine should never have been introduced and now cannot be changed.
On the Assumption of Mary: Reading your comment and putting it in the context of the clip it would seem that you actually believe that we Catholics believe Mary is somehow in space right now. You do know that the Assumption of Mary is into HEAVEN not space. Do you? So i am afraid you are incorrect again: if a Catholic does not believe that Mary Assumpted into SPACE (read carefully now) and is somewhere in the Cosmos, then that Catholic would NOT be excommunicated.
@equitemcroce She is! Her body has to get to heaven. As a human If she 'bodily' ascended under the laws of physics as the Pope defined Mary would still be traveling. I can't help it! It is non sense isn't it! It is all in the interpretation. Like Humpty Dumpity words mean what you want them to mean. But Mary bodily went up. Did she disintegrate when she past the moon? The Pope never took space travel into account. He would be more careful today.
@Euphobia2 Mary went to heaven not space...I don't know what your trying to make out of this naive materialistic interpretation of something that clearly claims to go beyond this world/universe. As for Yuletide...you're confusing the rites and methods of worship that the Church used to transmit its message with the message itself. The Church's liturgical language is Latin...that's for historical reasons doing with Rome....but it didn't have to be like that. I hope you can see the difference.
@equitemcroce Yes I did and 'Yes' it is! Never did I dream when I came first in RE and Catechism that I should have to do this. The nuns taught me well, too well it seems. They taught me to think. Like Thomas Aquinas suggested in the light of new scientific evidence I have had to make the paradigm shift. To quote Lewis Carroll 'I have answered your questions and that is enough, Don't give yourself airs! Do you think I can listen all day to this stuff? Be off or I'll kick you down stairs!'
@Euphobia2 Anyway look, I wanted to address a few more issues you came up with but I’m getting tired of typing and I don’t have much more time to comment. But I did want to say one last thing: the reason why I asked if that was your voice was because I found it ironic that someone with such an “angelic” voice would not believe in “angels”.
@equitemcroce Oh I am an angel! An angel for enlightenment and commonsense. But thank you. I appreciate it. II is said and not my me that I have the best voice on YouTube but then I couldn't possibly comment.
The Pope would be extremely well pleased with this video, as he makes greater progress towards his ultimate objective, due to the dedication of his Novus Ordo SECLORUM, Ape children than from his traditional, 1 billion baptized children
Holy Roman Pagan Fish Hats, Batman... the infallibly divine Sumerian rulers are suing Darwin for plagiarizing their Morpholobotomized Mutard's Monkey Tale Jungle Book
Poor Atheist-Materialists, if they only knew that their delusion of grand intellect, from which they suffer while exhibiting proof of little knowledge & deficient acumen, is made visibly obvious to the world's more cognitively capable onlookers... then would they hide their shameful face... appropriately maintaining their identity occult... as do their supernaturalist, mental manipulators
"The majority of believers have a vague understanding of the concept of infallibility". As does the
producer of this video. Check it out - all agree that to err is human. Therefor, it logically stands to reason that to be infallible... is divine
He's your abductor daddy, Euphobia2. However, having the arrogant audacity to believe oneself to worthily oppose the Creator, results in being completely oblivious to the great degree of cunning & stealthiness possessed by yours & Eve's beguiler. A mind beguiled is tantamount to abduction by your Roman Papa Daddy. Rather than Euphobia, you'd be better
Oh I love this type of comment. Whenever someone doesn't agree with a video I am told I don't know what I am talking about as if that makes their point valid. Well I do know what I am talking about or I wouldn't have made the video. The Vatican accepts Theistic Evolution but not The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution but it matters not because Adam & Eve are in the Sacred Scriptures and right or wrong must be believed. I suggest you look up the refs.
Um, the roman Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution. And the doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean that every word out of the Pope's mouth, or every action he takes or teaching he hands down in inerrant, and it has nothing to do with the bible or tradition. I'm always amused when I watch videos that don't have the slightest idea what their talking about.
@just1inchrist The point is that 'papal infallibility 'is preventing the Pope from making any changes to the RC dogma. The Pope is handcuffed to all beliefs prior to 1870 and there is nothing he can do about it. He can't ordain women priests because St Paul was a misogynist and it says iso in the Holy Scripture and thus unalterable as this is infallible. This can never be changed. Problem for Pope is Original Sin on which the whole dogma is based never happened. The whole thing is a sham,
Not quite! At present RC's are only allowed to believe in theistic evolution which is not quite the same thing as it means God did it but we are not sure how! Ditto Adam & Eve. All RC's have to believe that these two real humans really sinned although there is no sign of them in human DNA. RC's just have to do what they are told.. Everything in Sacred Scripture and Tradition has to be believed. Pope has yet to declare on evolution. He won't as he is not that silly. Theistic Evolution sounds OK.
Papal infallibility only applies to issues of Faith and Morals when he declairs it as a infallible teaching, that has happened twice in the Church's history both marian dogmas. Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution ever since Pope Pius XII said the Church could believe in evolution. He also declaired the assumption of Mary by Papal infallibility.
@grebrim Yes the Pope does accept evolution but only as a individual. The Pope's church and that its the bit that matters, doesn't. The 1870 pronouncements prevent it as everything in The Sacred Scriptures is without fault. The Pope and his flock are in an impossible situation. The church says that Adam & Eve are real and the 'Sin' now called 'the event' really happened. That there is no sign of the biblical A&E in the DNA timeline is glossed over. You have to have 'think' turned off an RC.
@angelmezzanine Thank you for commenting. Yes it wasted six minutes as the world should be past such stupidity by now! If you are a non believer I hope it has filled you in as far as the Vatican is concerned. It you are a Roman Catholic the video is accurate. Ask your priest or read the Wikipedia page on the subject 'Papal Infallibility'. If you are young make sure you have a basic science education and make up your mind. This may have been the best 6 minutes ever as it will make you question!
thank God for Adam and Eve. Oh happy fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i only wish this lady and her creepy voice could hold her breath till the church falls. people have been predicting the end of the church for 2000yrs. sorry u r wrong. one reporter even said john paul ll would die before the end of the year. the reporter died before the end of the year. god love u now
@singapore7773 Creepy voice! Sorry but the days of burning at the stake are over if you don't like the message. Did it disturb you that much? Papal Infallibility is disturbing even for Catholics. The video just says Pope Benedict cannot change anything not that the church is finished mark you I don't think the bible will outlive The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. Thanks for commenting!
@Euphobia2 from the ladys sweet voice "it will eventully destroy the church". we've only been listening to that junk for 2000yrs. no it didnt disturb me that much. no catholic has a gun to his head. the bible has been around a while. i dont think it is going anywhere. science is good. it is not everything. God is
Adam & Eve have to be REAL. You cannot condemn mankind to eternal torture on a made up crime. Even the Vatican can see this that is why is spite of everything they insist all RC's believe in a 'Real' Adam & Eve and a 'Real event, Sin Fall.
That was OK for 2500 years but a lot has happened since 1859 and with DNA the myth has been proved scientifically to be a myth. The Pope is stuck with it and even worse since 1870 when all chance of 'up grading' was lost.
You can believe that primates evolved into Homo Sapiens, but the first human was born with the special creation of the soul. How this happened or when is unknown and unable to be proven. Maybe the first human wasn't even a Homo Sapien.
The first to even address it directly was Pius XII who said it did not contradict Church teaching as long as it is believed that God created the soul at the moment of conception. JP2 called natural evolution part of Gods design. B XVII said that the natural evolution became special creation with the creation the soul.
@JDZwiers19 Souls may be part of the Holy Tradition. They do not feature in the bible that I know of and as yet there has been no Infallible preaching on the subject. This is just the Pope's opinion and as we know when not speaking Ex Cathedra it is not infallible. All RC's must believe in Adam & Eve and the event. It has to be real for the curse to work! Fortunately I am not related to A&E. Not one drop of their DNA is in my genes so I am not guilty and neither are you!
@JDZwiers19 Souls are part of RC Dogma. Very much part of Holy Tradition which is what we call dogma that is not in the bible but has been added to the doctrine by the Vatican. It is not divine revelation and why many other religions do not concur. Holy Tradition in considered infallible since 1870. Doesn't make it right though!
Catholics have never been bound to a literal reading of Genesis. St. Augustine wrote a whole book on the matter. Augustine for example believed that humans may have been created in a fallen state and that the actual first sin never took place. He also held that the seven day creation was a logical framework and not a literal timeline. The Book of Genesis is a theological narrative that describes mans relationship with God. Darwinism was never outright condemned by any Pope.
@JDZwiers19 St Augustine is no God or the Pope. RC's of which I am one, have to believe in Adam & Eve. It is Sacred Scripture and without error. That's it! No need to question just believe or get put out! Like the Bodily Assumption of Mary. RC's Believe it under pain of excumunication. No need to condemn Darwin and even if it appears Darwin is right and he is you just put it behind you and believe in the Vatican. God is without error and so on occasions is the Pope!
@JDZwiers19 2. St Augustine went back on what he said and he also said that one should change one's opinion in the light of new scientific discoveries, see Wiki. Augustine lived a long time ago and I think if he were alive today with all we know about DNA he would change his opinion. The book of Genesis is fiction you are right and it should be treated as fiction. The Pope is stuck with it!
Augustine pretty much defined original sin as the Church teaches to this day. He is one of the greatest doctor of the Church. His views of science not being able to contradict faith have been embraced by the Church throughout the ages. Augustine would not have had a problem accepting evolution and his faith. Church Doctrine has no conflict with evolution. The fall was real. Adam is often described in scripture and tradition as all of mankind. So what is it? One man or all men?Does it matter?
@JDZwiers19 It is not stupid. Every word is true. You can check all my references. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is very hard to take. Even if it is shown to be in error it is correct. Most of us today find that hard to accept . In all my 8 years with the nuns this subject and implications was never bought up and I can see why. It is stupid.
I now it is hard for believers to get their heads around this as it is hard to admit it is wrong but it is. 2+2 must + 4.
@Euphobia2 Papal infallibility has been used very times. If it could be proven wrong in one instance I would no longer believe in the Church. It can't. That stupid thing about Mary flying into space was absolutely ridiculous. And not a single infallible statement conflicts with evolution. This video makes huge erroneous claims then produces no examples to back them up. Its garbage.
Infallibility means that even if something is wrong it must be believed to be true by RC's. We, once an RC always an RC, have to believe in that Adam & Eve are Real even though we know they weren't. We have to believe in the BODILY Assumption of Mary even though we know it could not happen and if it did she is only 2000 light years away.
Took me many years to 'wake up' but I did and I am happier for it. If this video has made you think then it has been worth the effort.
Our first Most Recent Common Ancestors lived so far apart they could not have committed the sin! There is encyclopeadias's worth of evidence for this. The RC church does not deny this, it can't that is why the Pope allows theistic evolution but not as an 'ex cathedra', it is his opinion.
The bible and science clash. We are Modern Humans, there can be no doubt, we are not related to the biblical A&E. We are Not Guilty!
First thank you for commenting. I appreciate it! OK One instance. Adam & Eve are supposed to be Real People, humans like you and I. The RC church says they are 'Real' and the Fall a 'Real event'. They whoever they are are are first parents, we are all related and this is true. All humans are related. We all share the same DNA but our first mother was Mitochondrial Eve 160 thousand years ago and father y Chromosomal Adam 80 thousand years ago. Not a sign of the biblical A&E.
@Euphobia2 you're right, like to do some fun mindgame? where would somebody pin down adam and eve in the human evolution? the first male and female, that could talk, so they could communicate with a talking snake, that inspite of her lacking any vocal chords and lips to form words or sounds did so? ;) there's no real use in talking about whether or not the rc church does accept or at least tolerate evolution, when thinking about that ... by the way love your voice!
Read the interpretation this deals with the first Humans created by God. The First Humans have to Sin. Someone REAL, somewhere has to commit that Sin! You must agree about that. If this pivotal fact never happened then the bible and all the rest of it is either redundant or wrong!
The bible is considered Sacred Scripture and everything in it including Christ has to be believed. The way Genesis is told is figurative, not metaphorical and are to be believed.
1 All RC's are aware of the guilt of Original Sin and the necessity of baptizing the unbaptized. It is the one sacrament that anyone can administer as the consequences of dying unbaptized are unthinkable. The stain of this Sin is on all mankind. Catholics especially children are made aware of the guilt of this Sin and fear or committing a mortal sin and going to hell is drummed into one on a daily basis. Missing Mass on a Sunday is a mortal sin!
Peter may have considered himself infallible but the dogma on Papal Infallibility was only defined officially in 1870. On this date all Sacred Texts, Sacred Tradition and Papal Infallibility were defined infallible and without error and this can never be changed even if found later to be incorrect as is the case of Adam & Eve who never existed to commit the Original Sin as is proved beyond all doubt by DNA. The Pope when defining doctrine is infallible!
@Euphobia2 Just because a doctrine was not defined until a certain date doesn't mean the Church didn't always hold it as true. Many Protestants make this same blunder.
There is no ex cathedra statement which defines that Genesis must be taken as literally as you suggest. The only thing science has demonstrated is that the strict literal view of Genesis is not practical. However, the Church has always only claimed to be infallible on matters of faith and morals, not science or history.
Catholics are not free to interpret Genesis in a metaphorical manner. The Catechism allows for a figurative interpretation but Adam & Eve are to be taken to be the first REAL human created by God and the Event 'Original Sin' as a real event. All RC's including you must believe this on pain of excommunication. It is in the bible which is a Sacred Text and therefor infallible. refr the RC Catechism, The page is in the video.
@Euphobia2 Show me the ex cathedra statement on Adam and Eve and I will full-heartedly agree with you. This might help:
Go to the Catholic Answers website. Type the following into the search bar, "adam and eve". The first link will take you to an article about this topic. Scroll down to the bottom where it talks about the Church's position regarding whether Adam and Eve were real.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Adam & Eve are in the Bible which is a Sacred Text and so defined infallible in 1870. There is no doubt about this! It is only new doctrine like the 'Assumption of the Blessed Virgin' that does not appear in the bible and is made up that needs an ex cathedra statement. Look in you RC Catechism which every RC must believe - Adam & Eve are REAL and the EVENT is REAL. Only we all know they are not! Oh it is all so silly! Believe me it is not me who is making things up!
@Euphobia2 I don't think so. You actually do need an ex cathedra statement for such an interpretation of the Bible. Yes, the Bible is inerrant on its own, but the interpretation of the texts is fallible unless guided by some infallible statement.
Therefore provide the ex cathedra statement (which obviously you could not) or stop telling lies. By the way, the Catechism never explicitly states that Catholics are bound to believe Adam and Eve were real, literal persons.
No it isn't! Because Papal Infallibility over rides science. Everyone in the world knows that Adam & Eve as described in the bible do not exist. The Pope knows they don't exist but Papal Infallibility says they do and this is without error although we all know this is wrong.
This Pope any Pope cannot change anything, ever! We know that Adam & Eve never sinned so it is up to you to decide but please get your facts right
This movie is rife with innacuracy. For example, the Pope is not deemed to be infallible on all matters-only matters of doctrine. There is a big difference. Also, evolution never disproved that there were any first humans. What a blunder! Also, why does the author say "unlike the theory of gravity"? What does the author have against gravity? Also, the Church never said that the Bible was completely infallible either.
@PlatonicUniverse@PlatonicUniverse No it isn't! The Pope is Infallible when dealing with matters of doctrine set by the Vatican1 in 1870. Pious IX set the whole of the bible in stone. Every word is infallible and this can never be changed! Look it up! Trouble with the RC Church is it won't face facts. The Theory of Gravity has been modified so far Evolution hasn't, Every scientist knows this! Evolution proves A&E of the RC catechism never existed. The Vatican is aware of this and keeps mum!
@Euphobia1 The Vatican admits that some of the language used by the ancients is 'figurative' but still true. NOT allegorical! Look A&E up in the Catechism. They are real, Original Sin was as real event. According to the Vatican both events happened and science can prove with evidence they didn't. All RC's have to believe in A&E and Original Sin. The church is based on it! They also have to believe without question that Mary's Body was physically taken bodily into heaven. I rest my case!
@Euphobia1 Yes there is a doctine of original sin. But you have gone wrong in saying science can disprove a concept that it can't touch. Also Newtonian gravity has not been modified and Evolution has been modified by Punctuated Equilibrium, any good scientist will tell you that.
@Euphobia1 Yes I said only in matters of doctrine. The Bible contains doctrines, but they are not official until they are pronounced upon plus what has been used from Tradition. It has never been pronounced by the Church, ever, that the Bible is 100% infallible. It teaches more likely to the contrary because the Church holds the Bible to be inspired and not divinely dictated.
@PlatonicUniverse The bible, being the written basis of christianity especially the catholic church, always claimed to have a monopol for truth, as you might heard it before: "the word of god". it had to give up this possition, after the enlightenment. You also might know the name galilei, he was punished for publishing his findings because they did not fit the bible story and the geo-, or better put humancentric view of the church. and i don't think euphobia2 has a dislike for gravity.. ;)
The 'ensoulment' view doesn't need saving. If human evolution ocurred, and it appears it has, and if the human soul exists, and it appears that it does, then 'ensoulment' makes sense. The human body is 'animalia'. The human soul is not.
Sentience, love, self-sacrifice, heroism, poetry, music, honor,etc., for me, are examples of just a few aspects that transcend the mere physical. I doubt that these are all explainable by purely biological means. I also believe that the 'created' requires a 'creator'; evolution merely being an aspect of natural law. For me, the 'soul' is the spiritual 'force', the 'ghost in the machine', if you will, that animates us. Love is the primary directive.
@Pacisdiligo no, what i meant was it is quite easy to explain it genetically, why those random sequences of nucleotides that don't care about anything but making more copies of themselves make us do all that nonsense u mentioned above
@seahog32 I think what Pacisdiligo means is the concepts themselves. Concepts are not physically discoverable in the way that we perceive things as our senses do. It would have perhaps done Pacisdiligo more credit had he mentioned reasons for God's existence to prove the existence of a soul.
@PlatonicUniverse those concepts are secondary to the objective facts and, as far as i know, none of the gods requires a reason for his/her/its existence..which is damned lucky because there really is no reason for his/her/its existence indeed
@seahog32 "as far as i know, none of the gods requires a reason for his/her/its existence" I would disagree with such a statement of course, but this is no place for such a debate. I am merely saying that that if true, would have been an effective argument.
This has been flagged as spam show
None of u can give me a Bible verse. All you keep saying is catechism and tradition. Is Catechism better than the Bible? Y read mystical city of God when the Bible is there? All Catholics say are things written by men/ saints/ pope but can't defend with the Bible!
nobolistic 4 months ago
Nice one. I suggest to help encourage your view you should check answers in genesis.
BrendanMurrayJubana 8 months ago
What the heck? This is so wrong...this is not at all what Papal Infallibility is about. I'm sick and tired by people who have no idea what the Church says about Scripture and Papal infallibility and then make these incredibly wrong claims about them. So disappointing...
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce I think you will find that this video is just what Papal Infallibility is about. Nothing said here is incorrect. It is all in the Vatican's Wiki page and they should know! Ordinary RC's are just not taught this dogma as it is too unbelievable for even the most uneducated. If I am wrong please tell me .
Problem is the Vatican know's it is wrong too and they can't do a thing about it. Pope Pius IX was warned but he was 90 years old and the French were at the door!
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 There are so many caricatured and simply wrong statements about the Church here that it is hard to know where to begin...I think one of the major problems is an unstated, but clearly implied, poor epistemological assumption which threads this clip together. The assumption is that all forms of knowledge can only be acquired through science (post-Galilean) which is a narrow and closed minded way of approaching the discovery of Truth.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce @equitemcroce What are your talking about?
I challenge you to say exactly where the video is 'wrong' I have a superb RC education and I know my catechism backwards! If quoting the catechism is 'wrong' where does one start? The problem is that Catholics think they know their religion but they don't. I didn't! It was only when I started to actually look at the dogma that I realized it was nonsense. I await your reply with interest. Plain English please.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 For starters which "laws" were set in stone by Constantine in 325? Because you should know that he didn't set the laws of Christianity at all. You claim that the Church never thought that its doctrines would be put in question? Really? What about the "questio" format of the Scholastics like Thomas Aquinas? Where do you think Thomas got his "objections" and "questions" in the first place (I am referring to his Summa here)?
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce First I appreciate your time in answering. You do put up a pretty good show. I am not sure how far I'll get but I'll respond to a few. Yes Constantine did set the laws for current Christianity as you know. He got all the myths together and sorted out an official version. Aguinas did indeed encourage questioning but he also said if a fact was found to be wrong then it was correct to change one's opinion. I think you would find Aquinas would be an atheist today. See Wiki for ref.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 I suggest you start going to primary sources and not only to wiki as it is not the most reliable source. Actually read Aquinas' summa and quinque viae. If you haven’t already done so, I suggest you do it in a course because wiki will not be able to provide you the knowledge and understanding that a formal course with a good class and professor can provide. And I doubt Aquinas would be an atheist because he would not divorce faith and reason
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Please tell me which laws were set in place by Constantine? Your claim here lacks serious scholarly work to back it up. I’m sorry but it is just wrong as a historical fact and is just puzzle history: trying to put facts together with no causation to prove that they are correlated. From a historical-critical perspective, that is a seriously flawed methodology which is unscientific. Church councils established many of the rules and doctrines before the guy was born.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Constantine continued: Of course, anybody who understands Catholic doctrine would know that even someone like Constantine could provide some theological insights and contribute to the Tradition of the Church. So even if it were true, it wouldn’t mean much...but it isn’t true so this wrong claim should not be promulgated because it is wrong as a historical fact.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Also, in 1870 the Pope did not invent the doctrine, it was simply defined. In other words, the Church was bound by Papal infallibility since the time Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not since 1870. People contest it...ok, but you should at least understand this fact if you claim to understand RC doctrine.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce In 1870 Pius IX did indeed set all the doctrines in stone. Nothing was allowed to be redefined after that date! This is the problem. Usually religions change subtly with the times if they are to survive. We are not in the Stone Age. Papal Infallibility was a new dogma. Jesus may or may not have given Peter the 'keys' but he didn't say that Peter's descendants had a 'hotline' to heaven! Pius IX did that! It was a mistake and a'mistake' that cannot be corrected.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
The 1870 issue: read what I was saying carefully. I said that Papal infallibility is actually a doctrine that dates back to Jesus as it can be documented in the Gospel of Matthew chapter: “what you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven etc”...so Catholic interpretation would say that Heaven would not err therefore, what is bound by the Pontiff reflects a deep truth establish not by the Pope but by the author of Truth: God. This is perfectly coherent and you should recognize this.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
1870 continued: so yes, in some cases (which are very rare) the Holy Spirit will protect the office of the Pope (or the Church in a full ecumenical council) from error. And again, I have to protest the way you portray the intentions of Catholics. We do not follow the Church because we are trying to justify the unjustifiable, we follow it because we believe it brings us the Truth (remember, the Truth is a person for Christians).
equitemcroce 8 months ago
“Usually religions change subtly with the times if they are to survive”
If by religion you mean the truths held by these religions (and not just the rites or the methods of devotion), then such religions would be nonsense. Seriously, what kind of a pathetic excuse of a religion would claim to change the truth because it is worried for “survival”. I hold my religion to a much higher standard and am not afraid (and no it is not painful) of the Truth.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce Easter, Yuletide etc. I rest my case
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 And why does Evolution disprove the existence of Adam? Did you ever read Pius XII Humani Generis on this matter? If it is read correctly, you will realize that the Pope is actually saying that there is more that we do not know than we do know. All that we know is that Adam existed but the material understanding of this is truly far from clear.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce DNA proves without doubt that there has never been a 'first human man or woman' as defined in the bible. Not possible! This can be proved scientifically! So there was No 'Sin" and without that 'Sin" the whole meaning of the religion falls apart. PiusXIi was just making the best of a bad job and he wasn't around for the discovery of DNA. We know that Adam and Eve didn't exist. Your statement that they 'do' is incorrect and wishful thinking as you know they must! They don't.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Adam and Eve: I did not intend you to bother yourself trying to explain DNA evidence. I understand this quite well (I studied and currently am studying genetics). My question was actually made so you could understand what Pius XII was saying concerning Adam and Eve. The Pope was making a statement for “true” humans: meaning that if another animal had a body like mine but no soul, he would not be human in a Catholic understanding. Pius’ discussion concerns the soul cont...
equitemcroce 8 months ago
Adam and Eve continued: Pius actually says he doesn’t know how it happened that God gave Adam the first soul. And this brings us back to Papal infallibility. As you probably know (I hope wiki at least mentions this), for a Pope to speak infallibly, the statements must concern matters of faith and morals. the Pope and the Church are not scientific institutions, their authority is NOT on matters of science. So the Pope has no real intention in claiming any authority over scientific findings.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 And up to know I was speaking in plain English. Only if I said something like this could you imply that I wasn’t: what is known is known, because what is known infallibly can only be True and Truth cannot contradict itself. If it is demonstrated that our knowledge is wrong, then there is no point in claiming it to be true. What I said here may sound like a joke (and I intended it to be read like that) but there is an actual point to behind it cont...
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce I found that particular post incomprehensible. Priests are very good at platitudinous sermons where they say nothing in long words for hours but it sounds good and confuses the congregation. According to the dogma 'Adam & Eve' were the first humans God created. They were not. Now move on! Take the paradigm Shift and 'move on'. Trying to pretend that God did somehow create this couple is not helping you. The Pope is an ordinary man with no hotline to a God. He just thinks he is!
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 BTW, I am not a preist (just to be clear as one of you posts seems to have indirectly brought up the issue) and my “incomprehensible post” was a joke...but a joke with a purpose.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 It’s not just Papal infallibility that binds us to believe certain doctrines. The idea is that Truth cannot contradict itself. Something true in 200 AD is true in 2011 AD. The responsibility owed to that Truth, the understanding of that Truth, the variations of how that Truth affects us etc...these things change according to time and circumstance but we cannot contradict the Truth.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 If somehow, we fully prove that Christ did not exist...then it's game over for us. There’s no manipulation of the facts, there’s no attempting to fit things that don't fix. We would be wrong...so stop portraying the Pope and many believers as disingenuous. As believers we owe our duty and our life to the Truth...maybe people should start realizing that our endeavor is genuine.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce I do not think the evidence that Jesus existed would stand up in a current court of law. We know that 'Adam & Eve' do not exist, so No 'Sin' and No need for a Jesus. The game as you say is over but it is not generally realized. I admire you for saying this as it must be difficult. It was for me but I made the 'shift'. Humans have to rely on ourselves to save the planet. There is no afterlife. This is it.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
Concerning Jesus, you claim that his existence would not hold up in a court of law? It’s funny, because we have more documents and evidence to believe that Christ existed than that Constantine existed and yet you take the existence of Constantine for granted. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Constantine existed, I’m just trying to point out the incoherence in your line of thought.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 and the Assumption of Mary comment made in the clip...I really hope that was just a dumb joke. I sure chuckled.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce @equitemcroce Glad you appreciated it! But millions of people seriously believe this happened. They would be excommunicated if they didn't. The Pope said it happened. It is not in the bible! But if she had been lifted into space bodily she would still be there and in space time not too far away.
This doctrine should never have been introduced and now cannot be changed.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
On the Assumption of Mary: Reading your comment and putting it in the context of the clip it would seem that you actually believe that we Catholics believe Mary is somehow in space right now. You do know that the Assumption of Mary is into HEAVEN not space. Do you? So i am afraid you are incorrect again: if a Catholic does not believe that Mary Assumpted into SPACE (read carefully now) and is somewhere in the Cosmos, then that Catholic would NOT be excommunicated.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce She is! Her body has to get to heaven. As a human If she 'bodily' ascended under the laws of physics as the Pope defined Mary would still be traveling. I can't help it! It is non sense isn't it! It is all in the interpretation. Like Humpty Dumpity words mean what you want them to mean. But Mary bodily went up. Did she disintegrate when she past the moon? The Pope never took space travel into account. He would be more careful today.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Mary went to heaven not space...I don't know what your trying to make out of this naive materialistic interpretation of something that clearly claims to go beyond this world/universe. As for Yuletide...you're confusing the rites and methods of worship that the Church used to transmit its message with the message itself. The Church's liturgical language is Latin...that's for historical reasons doing with Rome....but it didn't have to be like that. I hope you can see the difference.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce 'Mary in space' is an allegory and not meant to be literally true.
guwest2 2 weeks ago
@Euphobia2 btw, did you make these yourself? Is that your voice?
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce Yes I did and 'Yes' it is! Never did I dream when I came first in RE and Catechism that I should have to do this. The nuns taught me well, too well it seems. They taught me to think. Like Thomas Aquinas suggested in the light of new scientific evidence I have had to make the paradigm shift. To quote Lewis Carroll 'I have answered your questions and that is enough, Don't give yourself airs! Do you think I can listen all day to this stuff? Be off or I'll kick you down stairs!'
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Anyway look, I wanted to address a few more issues you came up with but I’m getting tired of typing and I don’t have much more time to comment. But I did want to say one last thing: the reason why I asked if that was your voice was because I found it ironic that someone with such an “angelic” voice would not believe in “angels”.
equitemcroce 8 months ago
@equitemcroce Oh I am an angel! An angel for enlightenment and commonsense. But thank you. I appreciate it. II is said and not my me that I have the best voice on YouTube but then I couldn't possibly comment.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
The Pope would be extremely well pleased with this video, as he makes greater progress towards his ultimate objective, due to the dedication of his Novus Ordo SECLORUM, Ape children than from his traditional, 1 billion baptized children
Holy Roman Pagan Fish Hats, Batman... the infallibly divine Sumerian rulers are suing Darwin for plagiarizing their Morpholobotomized Mutard's Monkey Tale Jungle Book
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
Poor Atheist-Materialists, if they only knew that their delusion of grand intellect, from which they suffer while exhibiting proof of little knowledge & deficient acumen, is made visibly obvious to the world's more cognitively capable onlookers... then would they hide their shameful face... appropriately maintaining their identity occult... as do their supernaturalist, mental manipulators
"The majority of believers have a vague understanding of the concept of infallibility". As does the
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
producer of this video. Check it out - all agree that to err is human. Therefor, it logically stands to reason that to be infallible... is divine
He's your abductor daddy, Euphobia2. However, having the arrogant audacity to believe oneself to worthily oppose the Creator, results in being completely oblivious to the great degree of cunning & stealthiness possessed by yours & Eve's beguiler. A mind beguiled is tantamount to abduction by your Roman Papa Daddy. Rather than Euphobia, you'd be better
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
suited with the name Europa2
Speaking of names... check it out >
In Latin - "Vicar of Christ"
In Greek - "Anti Christ"
Now you know one of the reasons why they so vehemently insisted on Latin only... & why the abducted child also hates Christianity
Good little Roman
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
Oh I love this type of comment. Whenever someone doesn't agree with a video I am told I don't know what I am talking about as if that makes their point valid. Well I do know what I am talking about or I wouldn't have made the video. The Vatican accepts Theistic Evolution but not The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution but it matters not because Adam & Eve are in the Sacred Scriptures and right or wrong must be believed. I suggest you look up the refs.
Euphobia2 10 months ago
Um, the roman Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution. And the doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean that every word out of the Pope's mouth, or every action he takes or teaching he hands down in inerrant, and it has nothing to do with the bible or tradition. I'm always amused when I watch videos that don't have the slightest idea what their talking about.
TheSecularTheist 10 months ago
You miss the point that papal infallability is only when making statements on doctorine or dogma
just1inchrist 1 year ago
@just1inchrist The point is that 'papal infallibility 'is preventing the Pope from making any changes to the RC dogma. The Pope is handcuffed to all beliefs prior to 1870 and there is nothing he can do about it. He can't ordain women priests because St Paul was a misogynist and it says iso in the Holy Scripture and thus unalterable as this is infallible. This can never be changed. Problem for Pope is Original Sin on which the whole dogma is based never happened. The whole thing is a sham,
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Not quite! At present RC's are only allowed to believe in theistic evolution which is not quite the same thing as it means God did it but we are not sure how! Ditto Adam & Eve. All RC's have to believe that these two real humans really sinned although there is no sign of them in human DNA. RC's just have to do what they are told.. Everything in Sacred Scripture and Tradition has to be believed. Pope has yet to declare on evolution. He won't as he is not that silly. Theistic Evolution sounds OK.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Papal infallibility only applies to issues of Faith and Morals when he declairs it as a infallible teaching, that has happened twice in the Church's history both marian dogmas. Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution ever since Pope Pius XII said the Church could believe in evolution. He also declaired the assumption of Mary by Papal infallibility.
petermanz12 1 year ago
At least the last Pope DID accept evolution by natural selection.
You mistake: you think that these people consider themselves bound by logic and reason, as we do.
grebrim 1 year ago
@grebrim Yes the Pope does accept evolution but only as a individual. The Pope's church and that its the bit that matters, doesn't. The 1870 pronouncements prevent it as everything in The Sacred Scriptures is without fault. The Pope and his flock are in an impossible situation. The church says that Adam & Eve are real and the 'Sin' now called 'the event' really happened. That there is no sign of the biblical A&E in the DNA timeline is glossed over. You have to have 'think' turned off an RC.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the dumbest video I have ever seen. I've just wasted 6 minutes and 31 seconds of my life and I want it back!!!
angelmezzanine 1 year ago
This is the dumbest video I have ever seen, I've just wasted 6 minutes and 31 seconds of my life and I want it back!!!
angelmezzanine 1 year ago
@angelmezzanine Thank you for commenting. Yes it wasted six minutes as the world should be past such stupidity by now! If you are a non believer I hope it has filled you in as far as the Vatican is concerned. It you are a Roman Catholic the video is accurate. Ask your priest or read the Wikipedia page on the subject 'Papal Infallibility'. If you are young make sure you have a basic science education and make up your mind. This may have been the best 6 minutes ever as it will make you question!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
thank God for Adam and Eve. Oh happy fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i only wish this lady and her creepy voice could hold her breath till the church falls. people have been predicting the end of the church for 2000yrs. sorry u r wrong. one reporter even said john paul ll would die before the end of the year. the reporter died before the end of the year. god love u now
singapore7773 1 year ago
@singapore7773 Creepy voice! Sorry but the days of burning at the stake are over if you don't like the message. Did it disturb you that much? Papal Infallibility is disturbing even for Catholics. The video just says Pope Benedict cannot change anything not that the church is finished mark you I don't think the bible will outlive The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. Thanks for commenting!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 from the ladys sweet voice "it will eventully destroy the church". we've only been listening to that junk for 2000yrs. no it didnt disturb me that much. no catholic has a gun to his head. the bible has been around a while. i dont think it is going anywhere. science is good. it is not everything. God is
singapore7773 1 year ago
Adam & Eve have to be REAL. You cannot condemn mankind to eternal torture on a made up crime. Even the Vatican can see this that is why is spite of everything they insist all RC's believe in a 'Real' Adam & Eve and a 'Real event, Sin Fall.
That was OK for 2500 years but a lot has happened since 1859 and with DNA the myth has been proved scientifically to be a myth. The Pope is stuck with it and even worse since 1870 when all chance of 'up grading' was lost.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can believe that primates evolved into Homo Sapiens, but the first human was born with the special creation of the soul. How this happened or when is unknown and unable to be proven. Maybe the first human wasn't even a Homo Sapien.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
Comment removed
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
Comment removed
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
The first to even address it directly was Pius XII who said it did not contradict Church teaching as long as it is believed that God created the soul at the moment of conception. JP2 called natural evolution part of Gods design. B XVII said that the natural evolution became special creation with the creation the soul.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 Souls may be part of the Holy Tradition. They do not feature in the bible that I know of and as yet there has been no Infallible preaching on the subject. This is just the Pope's opinion and as we know when not speaking Ex Cathedra it is not infallible. All RC's must believe in Adam & Eve and the event. It has to be real for the curse to work! Fortunately I am not related to A&E. Not one drop of their DNA is in my genes so I am not guilty and neither are you!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 Souls are very much infallible doctrine. It is explicit in scripture and has been defined by councils and papal decrees.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 Souls are part of RC Dogma. Very much part of Holy Tradition which is what we call dogma that is not in the bible but has been added to the doctrine by the Vatican. It is not divine revelation and why many other religions do not concur. Holy Tradition in considered infallible since 1870. Doesn't make it right though!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Comment removed
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
Catholics have never been bound to a literal reading of Genesis. St. Augustine wrote a whole book on the matter. Augustine for example believed that humans may have been created in a fallen state and that the actual first sin never took place. He also held that the seven day creation was a logical framework and not a literal timeline. The Book of Genesis is a theological narrative that describes mans relationship with God. Darwinism was never outright condemned by any Pope.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 St Augustine is no God or the Pope. RC's of which I am one, have to believe in Adam & Eve. It is Sacred Scripture and without error. That's it! No need to question just believe or get put out! Like the Bodily Assumption of Mary. RC's Believe it under pain of excumunication. No need to condemn Darwin and even if it appears Darwin is right and he is you just put it behind you and believe in the Vatican. God is without error and so on occasions is the Pope!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 2. St Augustine went back on what he said and he also said that one should change one's opinion in the light of new scientific discoveries, see Wiki. Augustine lived a long time ago and I think if he were alive today with all we know about DNA he would change his opinion. The book of Genesis is fiction you are right and it should be treated as fiction. The Pope is stuck with it!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Augustine pretty much defined original sin as the Church teaches to this day. He is one of the greatest doctor of the Church. His views of science not being able to contradict faith have been embraced by the Church throughout the ages. Augustine would not have had a problem accepting evolution and his faith. Church Doctrine has no conflict with evolution. The fall was real. Adam is often described in scripture and tradition as all of mankind. So what is it? One man or all men?Does it matter?
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
This is the most stupid video I have ever seen.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 It is not stupid. Every word is true. You can check all my references. The dogma of Papal Infallibility is very hard to take. Even if it is shown to be in error it is correct. Most of us today find that hard to accept . In all my 8 years with the nuns this subject and implications was never bought up and I can see why. It is stupid.
I now it is hard for believers to get their heads around this as it is hard to admit it is wrong but it is. 2+2 must + 4.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 Papal infallibility has been used very times. If it could be proven wrong in one instance I would no longer believe in the Church. It can't. That stupid thing about Mary flying into space was absolutely ridiculous. And not a single infallible statement conflicts with evolution. This video makes huge erroneous claims then produces no examples to back them up. Its garbage.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 Part 3
Infallibility means that even if something is wrong it must be believed to be true by RC's. We, once an RC always an RC, have to believe in that Adam & Eve are Real even though we know they weren't. We have to believe in the BODILY Assumption of Mary even though we know it could not happen and if it did she is only 2000 light years away.
Took me many years to 'wake up' but I did and I am happier for it. If this video has made you think then it has been worth the effort.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 Part 2
Our first Most Recent Common Ancestors lived so far apart they could not have committed the sin! There is encyclopeadias's worth of evidence for this. The RC church does not deny this, it can't that is why the Pope allows theistic evolution but not as an 'ex cathedra', it is his opinion.
The bible and science clash. We are Modern Humans, there can be no doubt, we are not related to the biblical A&E. We are Not Guilty!
So the Vatican just tells us to believe. You do!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@JDZwiers19 Part 1
First thank you for commenting. I appreciate it! OK One instance. Adam & Eve are supposed to be Real People, humans like you and I. The RC church says they are 'Real' and the Fall a 'Real event'. They whoever they are are are first parents, we are all related and this is true. All humans are related. We all share the same DNA but our first mother was Mitochondrial Eve 160 thousand years ago and father y Chromosomal Adam 80 thousand years ago. Not a sign of the biblical A&E.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 you're right, like to do some fun mindgame? where would somebody pin down adam and eve in the human evolution? the first male and female, that could talk, so they could communicate with a talking snake, that inspite of her lacking any vocal chords and lips to form words or sounds did so? ;) there's no real use in talking about whether or not the rc church does accept or at least tolerate evolution, when thinking about that ... by the way love your voice!
bobinska 1 year ago
Catechism RC Church 416-418
Read the interpretation this deals with the first Humans created by God. The First Humans have to Sin. Someone REAL, somewhere has to commit that Sin! You must agree about that. If this pivotal fact never happened then the bible and all the rest of it is either redundant or wrong!
The bible is considered Sacred Scripture and everything in it including Christ has to be believed. The way Genesis is told is figurative, not metaphorical and are to be believed.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Ignoring some of the other errors of this video, I might point out three blatant ones that make this video ridiculous:
1. A Catholic is made free of Original Sin in Baptism, so it is very wrong to suggest that Catholics are "bound" by this fear throughout life.
2. Papal Infallibility has been employed since the very beginning. The Apostle Peter (the first pope) employs it in Acts 15.
3. Catholics are free to interpret Genesis in a fashion that is not extremely literal. Science isn't rejected.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 What errors? Answer 1.
1 All RC's are aware of the guilt of Original Sin and the necessity of baptizing the unbaptized. It is the one sacrament that anyone can administer as the consequences of dying unbaptized are unthinkable. The stain of this Sin is on all mankind. Catholics especially children are made aware of the guilt of this Sin and fear or committing a mortal sin and going to hell is drummed into one on a daily basis. Missing Mass on a Sunday is a mortal sin!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 What errors - 2
Peter may have considered himself infallible but the dogma on Papal Infallibility was only defined officially in 1870. On this date all Sacred Texts, Sacred Tradition and Papal Infallibility were defined infallible and without error and this can never be changed even if found later to be incorrect as is the case of Adam & Eve who never existed to commit the Original Sin as is proved beyond all doubt by DNA. The Pope when defining doctrine is infallible!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 Just because a doctrine was not defined until a certain date doesn't mean the Church didn't always hold it as true. Many Protestants make this same blunder.
There is no ex cathedra statement which defines that Genesis must be taken as literally as you suggest. The only thing science has demonstrated is that the strict literal view of Genesis is not practical. However, the Church has always only claimed to be infallible on matters of faith and morals, not science or history.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 What error? 3
Catholics are not free to interpret Genesis in a metaphorical manner. The Catechism allows for a figurative interpretation but Adam & Eve are to be taken to be the first REAL human created by God and the Event 'Original Sin' as a real event. All RC's including you must believe this on pain of excommunication. It is in the bible which is a Sacred Text and therefor infallible. refr the RC Catechism, The page is in the video.
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Comment removed
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 Show me the ex cathedra statement on Adam and Eve and I will full-heartedly agree with you. This might help:
Go to the Catholic Answers website. Type the following into the search bar, "adam and eve". The first link will take you to an article about this topic. Scroll down to the bottom where it talks about the Church's position regarding whether Adam and Eve were real.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 Show me the ex cathedra statement on Adam and Eve and I will believe you. Otherwise, you are just making things up.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Adam & Eve are in the Bible which is a Sacred Text and so defined infallible in 1870. There is no doubt about this! It is only new doctrine like the 'Assumption of the Blessed Virgin' that does not appear in the bible and is made up that needs an ex cathedra statement. Look in you RC Catechism which every RC must believe - Adam & Eve are REAL and the EVENT is REAL. Only we all know they are not! Oh it is all so silly! Believe me it is not me who is making things up!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
@Euphobia2 I don't think so. You actually do need an ex cathedra statement for such an interpretation of the Bible. Yes, the Bible is inerrant on its own, but the interpretation of the texts is fallible unless guided by some infallible statement.
Therefore provide the ex cathedra statement (which obviously you could not) or stop telling lies. By the way, the Catechism never explicitly states that Catholics are bound to believe Adam and Eve were real, literal persons.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 What error? 'Science isn't rejected'
No it isn't! Because Papal Infallibility over rides science. Everyone in the world knows that Adam & Eve as described in the bible do not exist. The Pope knows they don't exist but Papal Infallibility says they do and this is without error although we all know this is wrong.
This Pope any Pope cannot change anything, ever! We know that Adam & Eve never sinned so it is up to you to decide but please get your facts right
Euphobia2 1 year ago
this theory is idiotic! im not catholic but this is just stupid.
eatatmargos 1 year ago
This movie is rife with innacuracy. For example, the Pope is not deemed to be infallible on all matters-only matters of doctrine. There is a big difference. Also, evolution never disproved that there were any first humans. What a blunder! Also, why does the author say "unlike the theory of gravity"? What does the author have against gravity? Also, the Church never said that the Bible was completely infallible either.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse @PlatonicUniverse No it isn't! The Pope is Infallible when dealing with matters of doctrine set by the Vatican1 in 1870. Pious IX set the whole of the bible in stone. Every word is infallible and this can never be changed! Look it up! Trouble with the RC Church is it won't face facts. The Theory of Gravity has been modified so far Evolution hasn't, Every scientist knows this! Evolution proves A&E of the RC catechism never existed. The Vatican is aware of this and keeps mum!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 The Vatican admits that some of the language used by the ancients is 'figurative' but still true. NOT allegorical! Look A&E up in the Catechism. They are real, Original Sin was as real event. According to the Vatican both events happened and science can prove with evidence they didn't. All RC's have to believe in A&E and Original Sin. The church is based on it! They also have to believe without question that Mary's Body was physically taken bodily into heaven. I rest my case!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Yes there is a doctine of original sin. But you have gone wrong in saying science can disprove a concept that it can't touch. Also Newtonian gravity has not been modified and Evolution has been modified by Punctuated Equilibrium, any good scientist will tell you that.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Yes I said only in matters of doctrine. The Bible contains doctrines, but they are not official until they are pronounced upon plus what has been used from Tradition. It has never been pronounced by the Church, ever, that the Bible is 100% infallible. It teaches more likely to the contrary because the Church holds the Bible to be inspired and not divinely dictated.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse The bible, being the written basis of christianity especially the catholic church, always claimed to have a monopol for truth, as you might heard it before: "the word of god". it had to give up this possition, after the enlightenment. You also might know the name galilei, he was punished for publishing his findings because they did not fit the bible story and the geo-, or better put humancentric view of the church. and i don't think euphobia2 has a dislike for gravity.. ;)
bobinska 1 year ago
The 'ensoulment' view doesn't need saving. If human evolution ocurred, and it appears it has, and if the human soul exists, and it appears that it does, then 'ensoulment' makes sense. The human body is 'animalia'. The human soul is not.
Pacisdiligo 2 years ago
@Pacisdiligo what is your definition of "soul" what facts do support your claim of its existence ?
seahog32 1 year ago
Sentience, love, self-sacrifice, heroism, poetry, music, honor,etc., for me, are examples of just a few aspects that transcend the mere physical. I doubt that these are all explainable by purely biological means. I also believe that the 'created' requires a 'creator'; evolution merely being an aspect of natural law. For me, the 'soul' is the spiritual 'force', the 'ghost in the machine', if you will, that animates us. Love is the primary directive.
Pacisdiligo 1 year ago
@Pacisdiligo there is a biological explanation for all of them
seahog32 1 year ago
That's being quite a bit too generous to the current state of the neurological sciences. I doubt very much such a thing can or could ever be proven.
Pacisdiligo 1 year ago
@Pacisdiligo no, what i meant was it is quite easy to explain it genetically, why those random sequences of nucleotides that don't care about anything but making more copies of themselves make us do all that nonsense u mentioned above
seahog32 1 year ago
@seahog32 I think what Pacisdiligo means is the concepts themselves. Concepts are not physically discoverable in the way that we perceive things as our senses do. It would have perhaps done Pacisdiligo more credit had he mentioned reasons for God's existence to prove the existence of a soul.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
@PlatonicUniverse those concepts are secondary to the objective facts and, as far as i know, none of the gods requires a reason for his/her/its existence..which is damned lucky because there really is no reason for his/her/its existence indeed
seahog32 1 year ago
@seahog32 "as far as i know, none of the gods requires a reason for his/her/its existence" I would disagree with such a statement of course, but this is no place for such a debate. I am merely saying that that if true, would have been an effective argument.
PlatonicUniverse 1 year ago
It doesn't seem like the concept of 'ensoulment' can save the theistic evolution view. Oh well, whatever will the world do without Catholicism?
Antichryst666 2 years ago 4