RC Church accepts evolution? again?

Agreed. That is how the Catholic Church repeatedly mutated the Bible into its present form. One wonders why non-RC Christians (many of whom see Catholics as Whores of Babylon) have not reversed all the various council edicts and edits.

quote:

---

I love it when all of the various Christian sects bicker and fight and cut each other down!
"My interpretation of this religious text that has no original copies and has been translated and transcribed and edited and changed by politically-motivated men many times with no way at all to verify it with outside evidence is correct and yours is clearly completely wrong!"

​

"No, OUR interpretation is 100% correct, and you are wrong!"

​

"Are not!"

​

"Are too!"

---

As an aside, I believe you may enjoy reading material contained in the following link. Others (Faith)may enjoy it as well.http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htmThe last paragraph of this dissertation is quoted below. The church itself will tell you that sacred tradition is superior to scripture, observing that the former has no basis on the latter.Pardon the digression.." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.

We don't regard the early councils as belonging to the RC Church but to the whole Church, that's why.

This is an area of vast ignorance for me, but didn't the Roman Catholic Church essentially begin around 300 A.D.? The Bible has changed a lot since then, I think.

It depends on what constitutes the "beginning" of the RCC. There was a long and continuous evolution of the institutions of the Church from the original, decentralized meetings of the unorganized non-Jewish Christians to the centralized insitution of the Medievel Church. Much like the "Fall of Rome" was a long, gradual process that began long before the conventional date of 476 and continued long afterwards.But just like one can arbitrarily point to the date at which the non-Roman Odoacer became Roman Emperor as "the" date for the Fall of Rome, so one can arbitrarily point to a particular historical event as the "beginning" of the Catholic Church.Despite my use of the word "arbitrary", such a choice would not be completely meaningless -- the choice would, no doubt, be an event that would indicate what the chooser feels is the essential nature of the Catholic Church.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The topic is the acceptatnce of the RCC of evolution NOT the origins of the church.Tempted to close this now.

The Roman Church sort of grew over time, establishing their Pope and their Magisterium and their superstitions, gradually supplanting the Bible as their guide in favor of those traditions, Mariolatry and saint worship and relics and indulgences and other nonBiblical things, until they'd pretty much eclipsed or supplanted the truths of the gospel. The Reformation was first and foremost a rediscovery of the scriptures which had been suppressed in the institutional church. There were true believers all that time nevertheless, mostly outside the RCC, wherever the Bible had been available. In the first centuries there were great men of the faith that Protestants continue to study. In fact throughout the centuries of the RC apostasy you still find true teachers of the gospel despite the distortions that have crept in.The Bible has not changed at all over the centuries. There are thousands of ancient manuscripts still in existence, and the earliest are the same as what we have now. The Dead Sea Scrolls which date before Christ have a complete book of Isaiah that is identical to ours, and fragments of many other Old Testament books that are also the same as ours. All the "errors" and "changes" people claim exist are mostly on the order of small "typos," and the abundance of copies of ancient manuscripts of the Bible that are available in all languages are all that is necessary to correct such minuscule errors. There are differences in translations, but for the most part not crucial ones, and again, there is a multitude of copies to compare for the purpose of correction.{Edit: OK, I realize this is off topic. To tie it back to the topic I'd just say again that I'm not surprised that the RCC would deny the Bible in favor of evolution, just as they denied it in favor of Aristotle which was the real reason for the flap with Galileo: their support of Aristotle, not the Bible.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:26 PM

If nothing else, Faith, your posts teach me new words. My first thought had something to do with
but I did look it up. "Worship of the Virgin Mary." Interesting word, thanks.

Faith, can you back up your claim of "Mariolatry" or is it just your opinion?

Depends on the definition of "worship" and the RC Church is very good at splitting hairs on definitions, but I call it worship when followers of an apparition of "Mary" assemble by the multiplied thousands, ask her for favors, and walk on their knees around her statue. Some opinions are true you know.

And some opinions are so much marsh gas!!! You may call it worship, but what you call it has no bearing on what it actually is. I think I'm in a much better position to describe what I do, thank you very much and your opinion on what I am actually doing shows your total ignorance of the thing you propound on. Why should anyone let your opinion get in the way of facts? Some Roman Catholics may do as you describe, but a minority of them. What RCs do is ask Mary to intercede on their behalf, to pray to God for them. After all, He might listen to his Mum. That's NOT worship, that's not idolatory.What do you mean about "walk on their knees around her statue"? How many times have you seen this?? I can tell you that I've never walked on my knees around her statue, I've never seen anyone walk on their knees round her statue and I would consider it unusual to say the least. I don't deny that it may happen, but it is not part of the teaching of the RC church.

Sigh. Yes, I know it's controversial. It's a Protestant-Catholic thing. I've seen this walking-on-their-knees phenomenon at least described in a (very positive, Catholic-inspired) book about the Medjugorje apparitions. I wouldn't expect to find it practiced in the US or Britain. Yes, I know that asking Mary to intercede for one is not considered to be prayer, but at its most basic, "prayer" merely means to petition someone for a favor, and that is certainly what this is. Jesus is presented in scripture as our one and only intercessor. Only God can hear our prayers, and this RC practice does elevate a mere human being above Him.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-09-2005 08:21 PM

Is it a Protestant-Catholic thing or a Fundamentalist Christian thing? I know that most Protestants don't see the Catholics as worshipping Mary.Do you have some evidence that any of the main Protestant churches feel as you express?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Did you know that the RC Church has refused to have anything to do with Medjugorje? Have a hunt on the internet and find out what the Bishop of Mostar thinks about it.So you read about it in a book, a single book, a book which you say was I notice that you don't say it was The RC Church describes it as asking for intercession, the practicing RCs are asking for intercession. They all tell you what they're doing, but they're all wrong because Faith "read it in a book". Can't you see how ludicrous this is? I know what I do, I'm the one best placed to know what I do and you really think that because you "read it in a book" you know better than me what I do. I've read lots of things in books. I've read all about Bigfoot and UFOs and alien abduction. Does that make them true, because I read about them in a book? Heck, I read all about Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid in a book. I didn't swallow them hook, line and sinker because they bear no relation to the reality I've personally experienced. Get that distinction? Personal experience! So why don't you go along to your local RC Church and observe Sunday Mass. That way you will at least be pontificating on something you might know a tiny bit about.And I don't buy your description of it as a Protestant-Catholic thing. Up until a few years ago I was a Protestant, yet I was never under the impression that RCs worshipped Mary. I knew fine well that what they did was ask her to intercede. I've known this since I was a kid in Sunday School. Now, why don't you?You also say So Jesus is our intercessor between ourselves and God. That means that God is our intercessor between God and God. Sounds like you might be a tad confused. And if Mary being an intercessor is elevating a mere human being above Him (I am assuming you mean God, but you don't seem very clear on this point), then Jesus being an intercessor is raising Jesus above God and that means raising God above God. Are you sure this is what you really meant to say?I'm sorry, but I cannot understand how you can possibly say that an intercessor is above God. They're a go-between, someone who is above us, but in no way does it put Mary above God or Jesus. If you think the RC Church is putting Mary above God, why don't they just worship Mary and forget God?

If you mean by "main Protestant churches" the liberal churches, no, there is in fact a movement among them to join back with the Catholic Church. In fact this movement has reached into Reformed and other fundamental circles to some extent and been the subject of much controversy over the last decade or so.Nevertheless, there is still a pure Protestant objection to all of the RC Church's superstitions. Here are a few I found on Mary:Phillip Schaff (who would certainly not be classed as a "fundamentalist") in his History of the Christian Church discusses it: A blog from World Mag, a popular online Protestant publication, that would not identify itself as fundamentalist: An interesting site devoted to exposing the errors of Rome from a Protestant point of view. It looks typical to me but I didn't read through the whole thing, so I don't know if it considers itself to be fundamentalist or not: