@@hansweichselbaum2534 Isn't this amazing? Even in our day, any honest physicist or astronomer will tell you that there exists no _scientific_ evidence against the so-called 'Neo-Tychonic' or 'Hildegardian' model of absolute geocentrism - not stellar parallax, or Foucault's pendulum, or anything else you may think of. Some of them may even mention the evidence that strongly suggests geocentrism, such as the the universe-wide alignment of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' to the Earth's ecliptic, and the quantized redshifts indicating concentric spheres of galaxies around the Earth. You don't know far. "The Catholic Church" can never formally bind itself to the lie of evolution. Whatever sect does such a thing, cannot be the Catholic Church.
@@jaspermay5813 Just a couple of points on your comments. As a scientist I certainly "care about the truth", as you put it. You are right, Galileo couldn't prove that the earth was moving - but that was four centuries ago! If your worldview is still stuck in the Middle Ages, with the earth in the centre of the cosmos, then I totally agree with you - biological evolution is total nonsense. I recommend that you get a basic textbook on science, not University Level 101, but lower high school level. Get one written by a sincere Christian. I can give you lots of recommendations, if you want. Throwing around with terms like "Neo-Tychnonic and Hildegardian model", "Quantizised redshifts, and "Axis of Evil" doesn't make you sound more convincing. Just a little footnote: Yes, Galileo couldn't detect stellar parallaxes, but we have measured them for the last 300 years.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Throwing around the claim that you are a 'scientist' and arrogantly telling me to study 'lower high school text books' doesn't make you convincing. You're just another modernist apostate. It's obvious that you know nothing about these subjects (and sadly don't even care that you don't), because as I said, stellar parallax doesn't prove anything. Einstein obviously knew about stellar parallax, but he admitted that no experiment had ever shown that the Earth moves. This is why he had to invent his theories on relativity: because he "knew" that the Earth "must" be moving anyway! Biological evolution is total nonsense to anyone of good will.
What amazes me is the fact that Every time evolution comes to a dead end, an even more convoluted theory is created to explain the unexplainable, and our post modern society goes along with that.
Same with astrology, they can't escape fine adjustment of Universe's constants or so called "Axis of evil", so they again escape from God, even denying the definition of science itself, claiming fantasies about multiverse. Their escape is getting more ridiculous as we are getting closer to the coming of their messiah, Atichrist. Only after that trial, the world will convert and redicsover how amazing, complexed, yet in common sense is the reality they were denying at all cost.
How can the evolution hypothesis be reconciled with the original sin doctrine? Did humans evolve over eons through natural selection, a process that requires a lot of death and suffering, or did death and suffering enter the world through Adam's sin?
According to evolution, animals stemmed from protozoans, protozoans stemmed from bacteria and bacteria possibly stemmed from clay. I see evolution just as God's modelling of the Man from the bare earth throughout eons, which upon His gaze are no more than days. When the work was finished and the physical shape of the human being reached its peak, God exhaled upon it (a mere animal) the spirit of life, a soul capable of knowing and loving Him. And since the creation of that first human, there was no suffering upon mankind until the original sin was committed.
@@m.j.v.4463 What complete modernism. No one could come to your forced interpretation of Genesis unless he first believed the baseless materialistic speculations of deists and atheists. Genesis doesn't say 'eons', but 'days'. If you insist that the word 'day' can sometimes mean 'eon', you must provide evidence that it in fact does in this case. You hide your unbelief with ambiguous language, by confusing 'that first human' with all of 'mankind', and not specifying who actually did the committing of what original sin. Genesis says that Adam was both the first human, simply created by God from the slime of the Earth on the sixth day of creation, as well as the one who first committed the original sin by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that he lived to the age of 930. Will you profess all this? Do you believe that Adam is the natural father of all of humanity (through Noe and his three sons)? Do you actually believe that "in the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened", which flooded "all the high mountains under the whole heaven"? Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
@@jaspermay5813 my "evidence" is Saint Peter II 3, 8. Of course I believe that Adam lived 930 years, that he is the only natural father of all of humanity, that the Deluge happened when Noah was 600, and all the definitive teachings of the Church as a whole. I don't bear unbelief, I just believe what I think fits best with the totality of the teachings of the Holy Mother Church. And I'm not afraid to question anything modern scientists say. But I'm quite sure that, in this case, they are right at least in the basic stuff. I don't confuse the first human with mankind. But the first human was indeed all mankind at that moment, not only physically but also spiritually. In fact, the Catholic view of the transmission of the original sin implies that our own personal will was already inside Adam when he disobeyed. Take this extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia as proof: "The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3)". Identifying Adam (or Adam and Eve) with all mankind is not only not ambiguous, but also a consistent practice across the Tradition of the Church, and it's even slightly implied in some Apostolic teachings (Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur). It's one of the reasons why we can call Christ "the New Adam": we all participate in His Body, as we did in Adam's at the beginning of times, although this time it will lead us to Life instead of death. Regarding evolution, most of its defendants are indeed materialistic or deistic, and often mix their phylosophies with their scientific theories. This generated the standardised worldview that despises humans and Earth as an irrelevant, random, untrascendental speck in the Universe. I totally reject said worldview, but I think it's factual base might bear some truth. The idea of life, growth and change gradually developing not only inside specific living beings but also inside the nature of Creation itself is definitely not anti-Catholic.
@@m.j.v.4463 Well, that is a very peculiar and inconsistent point of view. By far most of the exact same 'scientists' who promote deep time and evolution will mock you mercilessly for believing that Noah's flood was global, that all human beings descended from one father who lived around 6 or 7 thousand years ago, and that men used to reach ages of hundreds of years old (also that light was created after water, stars after plants, etc.). So why would you believe them when they promote deep time and evolution? These things obviously do not leap from the pages of the Bible, or else it wouldn't have taken 1900 years for nominal Catholics suddenly to 'see' them in there, and only _after_ they were pointed out to them by overtly anti-biblical and antichrist deists and atheists. So what natural evidence do you think compels you to interpret Genesis in such a way? Or is it merely your incredulity that so many people who are allowed to call themselves 'scientists' in our day could all be so very wrong?
If there were no harmful mutations before sin, evolution would be easier and faster. If the soul is the form of the body, God could have created human soul by making certain animals evolve into a perfect shape, into a figure of God Himself. Evolution doesn't deny organic unity. All parts of the body have a common origin, and, the same way they grow and differentiate throughout gestation (and the rest of our lives), they can also do that throughout generations if God wills that. It's not a "random" set of organs that somehow came together. It's more like a plant that starts as a tiny seed and progressively grows in complexity by extending its branches and its roots, according to evolution. And I think it's beautiful.
The Bible doesn't just say that there were 'no harmful mutations' before sin. It says that there was no *death* before sin. The idea of hundreds of millions of years of disease, deformity and death is not beautiful! What are you even saying.
@@jaspermay5813 that's not even true. The Bible does not say that animals or plants didn't die before the original sin. And humans didn't exist before Adam, although some animals (the ones in the inmediate natural genealogy of Adam) may have resambled us in a mere physical way. Inmortality (and absolute control over oneself and the rest of Creation) were only received by Adam and Eve as a privilege, a special supernatural gift that elevated them over their original nature. Another extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the very substance of man changed into evil. But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)]".
@@m.j.v.4463 So you think that millions of generations of pre-Adamic animals had to suffer and die, before Adam finally 'received immortality', only to lose it immediately? I shouldn't have implied that the Bible explicitly teaches that there was no animal death before the fall, although I believe it is a very reasonable interpretation. It is certainly more reasonable than saying that hundreds of millions of years of suffering and death is somehow 'beautiful'.
@@jaspermay5813 animal suffering is not an absolute evil. If it was intrinsically bad, animal sacrifice wouldn't be a thing in the Old Testament. I think it has always been a widespread debate point among theologians whether or not depredation existed before sin. Your interpretation truly does make sense, but it's not stablished doctrine in any way. If I had to give a reason for the presence of death before sin, I would probably look for it in the existence of a struggle between Heaven and Hell before time existed, but maybe only God knows.
@@m.j.v.4463 I agree, but (hundreds of millions of years of) animal suffering for no reason whatsoever, is neither good nor even neutral. You can't show that it was at all necessary to have hundreds of millions of years (!) of animal suffering before God called all that He had made 'good' on what you baselessly interpret as the fifth 'eon' of creation. You even called it 'beautiful'. Please consider deeply, exactly what natural evidence forces you to such an interpretation.
+ A.M.D.G. "In discussing questions of this kind two rules must be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i.18). The first is TO HOLD THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE WITHOUT WAVERING. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multitude of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, IF IT BE PROVED WITH CERTAINTY TO BE FALSE LEST HOLY SCRIPTURE BE EXPOSED TO RIDICULE OF UN BELIEVERS and obstacles be placed to their believing. . Q68 Art 1 Pt.1 On the work of the Second Day."
I wish that I could remember the name of a recent Church document that touches on evolution, and what we as Catholics need to believe in accordance with the Bible. The Church, with the exception of four fundamental rules leaves this debate to be decided on individually. However, these four tenets claim in themselves that Darwinism and evolutionism are heretical, but evolution itself is not. Btw it was a priest who came up with the big bang theory.
priests come up with theories and heresies every day. Luther was a Catholic priest. Zwingli was a Catholic priest. Just because a priest came up with it doesn't make it is valid or that Catholics should follow him. Many priests these days are effected by the heresy of Modernism. Which ironically works in accordance with the idea of the "evolution of dogma"
This is an unbelievably brilliant talk.
What a wise, humble and beautiful man this is. Listen to him he speaks the Truth
He might be beautiful in your eyes, but he doesn't speak the Truth©. If you want to know how God has created the universe, the multitude of lifeforms and how He maintains and sustains the universe then you need to look at nature. The Bible doesn't tell you anything about how nature operates.
I thought that we Catholics have learned our lessen four centuries ago with the Galileo affair. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of evolution as the best explanation of how God has created the multitude of lifeforms, plants, animals and people.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Your facetious "©" shows that you sadly don't actually care about the truth at all. The Bible explicitly tells us how God has created the universe, and it teaches us the true history of the world. A true interpretation of nature can't contradict it, but modernist interpretations certainly do. The Galileo affair only teaches us how many people are willing to reject Catholic tradition for the mere appearance of scientific legitimacy, and for the promise of superficial worldly approval.
Please note that even as late as 1632, Galileo himself admitted that neither he nor Copernicus before him had ever proven that the Earth moves: "Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position-- *eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved* that the earth moves and the sun stands still" (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, 1967 translation, p. v).
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Isn't this amazing? Even in our day, any honest physicist or astronomer will tell you that there exists no _scientific_ evidence against the so-called 'Neo-Tychonic' or 'Hildegardian' model of absolute geocentrism - not stellar parallax, or Foucault's pendulum, or anything else you may think of. Some of them may even mention the evidence that strongly suggests geocentrism, such as the the universe-wide alignment of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' to the Earth's ecliptic, and the quantized redshifts indicating concentric spheres of galaxies around the Earth.
You don't know far. "The Catholic Church" can never formally bind itself to the lie of evolution. Whatever sect does such a thing, cannot be the Catholic Church.
@@jaspermay5813 Just a couple of points on your comments. As a scientist I certainly "care about the truth", as you put it. You are right, Galileo couldn't prove that the earth was moving - but that was four centuries ago!
If your worldview is still stuck in the Middle Ages, with the earth in the centre of the cosmos, then I totally agree with you - biological evolution is total nonsense.
I recommend that you get a basic textbook on science, not University Level 101, but lower high school level. Get one written by a sincere Christian. I can give you lots of recommendations, if you want. Throwing around with terms like "Neo-Tychnonic and Hildegardian model", "Quantizised redshifts, and "Axis of Evil" doesn't make you sound more convincing.
Just a little footnote: Yes, Galileo couldn't detect stellar parallaxes, but we have measured them for the last 300 years.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Throwing around the claim that you are a 'scientist' and arrogantly telling me to study 'lower high school text books' doesn't make you convincing. You're just another modernist apostate. It's obvious that you know nothing about these subjects (and sadly don't even care that you don't), because as I said, stellar parallax doesn't prove anything. Einstein obviously knew about stellar parallax, but he admitted that no experiment had ever shown that the Earth moves. This is why he had to invent his theories on relativity: because he "knew" that the Earth "must" be moving anyway! Biological evolution is total nonsense to anyone of good will.
What amazes me is the fact that Every time evolution comes to a dead end, an even more convoluted theory is created to explain the unexplainable, and our post modern society goes along with that.
Same with astrology, they can't escape fine adjustment of Universe's constants or so called "Axis of evil", so they again escape from God, even denying the definition of science itself, claiming fantasies about multiverse. Their escape is getting more ridiculous as we are getting closer to the coming of their messiah, Atichrist. Only after that trial, the world will convert and redicsover how amazing, complexed, yet in common sense is the reality they were denying at all cost.
This content is such a blessing, a true breath of fresh air!
Mr Owens is a brilliant man, God bless him.
For those interested, also look up "Pamela Acker" on the Sensus Fidelium TH-cam Channel.
Read 'Teilhardism and the New Religion' by Wolfgang Smith if you want a great refutation of theistic evolution.
Please show me any evidence of what Hugh talks about at 12:00.
You want material evidence of the immaterial?
How can the evolution hypothesis be reconciled with the original sin doctrine? Did humans evolve over eons through natural selection, a process that requires a lot of death and suffering, or did death and suffering enter the world through Adam's sin?
Not at all. No, yes.
According to evolution, animals stemmed from protozoans, protozoans stemmed from bacteria and bacteria possibly stemmed from clay. I see evolution just as God's modelling of the Man from the bare earth throughout eons, which upon His gaze are no more than days. When the work was finished and the physical shape of the human being reached its peak, God exhaled upon it (a mere animal) the spirit of life, a soul capable of knowing and loving Him. And since the creation of that first human, there was no suffering upon mankind until the original sin was committed.
@@m.j.v.4463 What complete modernism. No one could come to your forced interpretation of Genesis unless he first believed the baseless materialistic speculations of deists and atheists. Genesis doesn't say 'eons', but 'days'. If you insist that the word 'day' can sometimes mean 'eon', you must provide evidence that it in fact does in this case.
You hide your unbelief with ambiguous language, by confusing 'that first human' with all of 'mankind', and not specifying who actually did the committing of what original sin. Genesis says that Adam was both the first human, simply created by God from the slime of the Earth on the sixth day of creation, as well as the one who first committed the original sin by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that he lived to the age of 930.
Will you profess all this? Do you believe that Adam is the natural father of all of humanity (through Noe and his three sons)? Do you actually believe that "in the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened", which flooded "all the high mountains under the whole heaven"? Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
@@jaspermay5813 my "evidence" is Saint Peter II 3, 8.
Of course I believe that Adam lived 930 years, that he is the only natural father of all of humanity, that the Deluge happened when Noah was 600, and all the definitive teachings of the Church as a whole. I don't bear unbelief, I just believe what I think fits best with the totality of the teachings of the Holy Mother Church. And I'm not afraid to question anything modern scientists say. But I'm quite sure that, in this case, they are right at least in the basic stuff.
I don't confuse the first human with mankind. But the first human was indeed all mankind at that moment, not only physically but also spiritually. In fact, the Catholic view of the transmission of the original sin implies that our own personal will was already inside Adam when he disobeyed. Take this extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia as proof:
"The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenæus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3)".
Identifying Adam (or Adam and Eve) with all mankind is not only not ambiguous, but also a consistent practice across the Tradition of the Church, and it's even slightly implied in some Apostolic teachings (Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita in Christo omnes vivificabuntur). It's one of the reasons why we can call Christ "the New Adam": we all participate in His Body, as we did in Adam's at the beginning of times, although this time it will lead us to Life instead of death.
Regarding evolution, most of its defendants are indeed materialistic or deistic, and often mix their phylosophies with their scientific theories. This generated the standardised worldview that despises humans and Earth as an irrelevant, random, untrascendental speck in the Universe. I totally reject said worldview, but I think it's factual base might bear some truth. The idea of life, growth and change gradually developing not only inside specific living beings but also inside the nature of Creation itself is definitely not anti-Catholic.
@@m.j.v.4463 Well, that is a very peculiar and inconsistent point of view. By far most of the exact same 'scientists' who promote deep time and evolution will mock you mercilessly for believing that Noah's flood was global, that all human beings descended from one father who lived around 6 or 7 thousand years ago, and that men used to reach ages of hundreds of years old (also that light was created after water, stars after plants, etc.). So why would you believe them when they promote deep time and evolution? These things obviously do not leap from the pages of the Bible, or else it wouldn't have taken 1900 years for nominal Catholics suddenly to 'see' them in there, and only _after_ they were pointed out to them by overtly anti-biblical and antichrist deists and atheists.
So what natural evidence do you think compels you to interpret Genesis in such a way? Or is it merely your incredulity that so many people who are allowed to call themselves 'scientists' in our day could all be so very wrong?
If there were no harmful mutations before sin, evolution would be easier and faster.
If the soul is the form of the body, God could have created human soul by making certain animals evolve into a perfect shape, into a figure of God Himself.
Evolution doesn't deny organic unity. All parts of the body have a common origin, and, the same way they grow and differentiate throughout gestation (and the rest of our lives), they can also do that throughout generations if God wills that. It's not a "random" set of organs that somehow came together. It's more like a plant that starts as a tiny seed and progressively grows in complexity by extending its branches and its roots, according to evolution. And I think it's beautiful.
The Bible doesn't just say that there were 'no harmful mutations' before sin. It says that there was no *death* before sin. The idea of hundreds of millions of years of disease, deformity and death is not beautiful! What are you even saying.
@@jaspermay5813 that's not even true. The Bible does not say that animals or plants didn't die before the original sin. And humans didn't exist before Adam, although some animals (the ones in the inmediate natural genealogy of Adam) may have resambled us in a mere physical way. Inmortality (and absolute control over oneself and the rest of Creation) were only received by Adam and Eve as a privilege, a special supernatural gift that elevated them over their original nature.
Another extract from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the very substance of man changed into evil.
But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)]".
@@m.j.v.4463 So you think that millions of generations of pre-Adamic animals had to suffer and die, before Adam finally 'received immortality', only to lose it immediately? I shouldn't have implied that the Bible explicitly teaches that there was no animal death before the fall, although I believe it is a very reasonable interpretation. It is certainly more reasonable than saying that hundreds of millions of years of suffering and death is somehow 'beautiful'.
@@jaspermay5813 animal suffering is not an absolute evil. If it was intrinsically bad, animal sacrifice wouldn't be a thing in the Old Testament.
I think it has always been a widespread debate point among theologians whether or not depredation existed before sin. Your interpretation truly does make sense, but it's not stablished doctrine in any way.
If I had to give a reason for the presence of death before sin, I would probably look for it in the existence of a struggle between Heaven and Hell before time existed, but maybe only God knows.
@@m.j.v.4463 I agree, but (hundreds of millions of years of) animal suffering for no reason whatsoever, is neither good nor even neutral. You can't show that it was at all necessary to have hundreds of millions of years (!) of animal suffering before God called all that He had made 'good' on what you baselessly interpret as the fifth 'eon' of creation. You even called it 'beautiful'. Please consider deeply, exactly what natural evidence forces you to such an interpretation.
+ A.M.D.G. "In discussing questions of this kind two rules must be observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i.18). The first is TO HOLD THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE WITHOUT WAVERING. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multitude of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, IF IT BE PROVED WITH CERTAINTY TO BE FALSE LEST HOLY SCRIPTURE BE EXPOSED TO RIDICULE OF UN BELIEVERS and obstacles be placed to their believing. . Q68 Art 1 Pt.1 On the work of the Second Day."
Indeed: "IF".
Great video post more. Post on chromosome 2
I wish that I could remember the name of a recent Church document that touches on evolution, and what we as Catholics need to believe in accordance with the Bible. The Church, with the exception of four fundamental rules leaves this debate to be decided on individually. However, these four tenets claim in themselves that Darwinism and evolutionism are heretical, but evolution itself is not. Btw it was a priest who came up with the big bang theory.
priests come up with theories and heresies every day. Luther was a Catholic priest. Zwingli was a Catholic priest. Just because a priest came up with it doesn't make it is valid or that Catholics should follow him. Many priests these days are effected by the heresy of Modernism. Which ironically works in accordance with the idea of the "evolution of dogma"
+lichonski128 oh I agree 100%
+Sabu Uncia very good haha :)
oh big Luther lol good point
Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII