• Horna Tham

    On going onslaught of the unborn baby 👶 is in reality feeding the blood thirsty serpent Satan through plan parenthood of abortion clinics. Combating this tragedy is the prayer fasting and action.

  • 2009glories

    Evolution is just the changing of an existing condition/living organism. We have no proof man came from apes. We have proof of different forms of humans. We have that today, though. Especially, in particular, I noticed a woman at our church who is unable to stand erect because of a condition she was either born with or that was a progression of her genetic makeup or other factors. If her skeleton would be found by others in the future they might, erroneously, conclude this women was a type of evolutionary human that had evolved from other forms before they could walk erect. How unbelievable is the error of scientists in making conclusions when even today we have proof against this type of a conclusion. Rather, if we look at what we see in our world today we can understand that all things were created by God and evolution was simply change of each part of creation over time. At one time, this woman at my church, might have been killed as being different or imperfect (today through abortion), or even have died early because of lack of medical understanding to help her survive.and thrive. Here we understand, again, the sanctity of every life God created and that quality of life is spiritual and not physical. How beautiful is the life of this woman because it helps explain God's creation.

  • ZombieHouseFresnoCA

    4:40 president stands up for life? what about those babies'- lives that matured and now need aid?
    taking away their insurance as they aged?

    Eternal World Trump Network* = EWTN
    Wonder what Angelica would say

  • Travis Brewer

    Father Spitzer, I read Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, and Centesimus Annus, and I observed that the first two totally bash Socialism, but then turn around and equally bash unbridled Capitalism. Centesimus Annus lacked the Socialism bashing of the predecessors, but echoed their bashing of unbridled Capitalism ultimately finding it “incompatible with Christian Morality.”

  • L35 in Colorado

    Spitzer doesn't seem to see the connection between the first question (evolution) and the second question (loss of faith). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to take Scripture very seriously, and I say this because if he did, he would re-evaluate his erroneous views on evolution history (because those views are thoroughly contradicted by Scripture, and Scripture is revelation from God). The entire purpose of Genesis is to reveal to us what happened when we were not around: God reveals to us His singular witness of what He did and how He did it. This has always been understood by the Church: if that is what God said, that is what happened. How Spitzer can simultaneously claim that evolution history is true but that Scripture is also true is some next level of cognitive dissonance, because Scripture roundly contradicts the false claims of evolution history. You cannot believe both to be true. You can have one, but you can’t have both. And that is what ties those two questions together, though he doesn’t see it.

    The fact that there is not a single Church Father who would agree with Spitzer that somehow there was suffering, misery, and death before the Fall, and that Adam and Eve were conceived by animal parents who were brutes, doesn't even seem to phase Spitzer, because he holds both of those wrong ideas to be "true" and actually tells other people to believe those wrong ideas over what Scripture plainly states and what the Fathers plainly believed and taught.

    No thanks. It is the recurring sleight of hand between history and science: man’s origin is not a scientific question – it is a historical question. As a historical question, it is outside the realm of science per se and properly in the realm of witness and revelation, and since God was the only witness, Divine Revelation is the only source for that information.

    I would argue that the man discussed in the second question (14:55) is more consistent (though wrong) than Spitzer: that man came to reject all of the faith, whereas Spitzer wants to pick and choose.

    If on the one hand Spitzer wants to tell people that Genesis is either incorrect or not literal, how can he then on the other hand tell people that anything in the Gospels is correct and literal by virtue of its appearance in Scripture? Or is it just "pick and choose"? The only authority Scripture has is IF it really is the revealed word of God. If it is not the revealed word of God, then why should anyone hold it any higher than any other book?

    The man mentioned in the second question is simply putting into practice what Spitzer himself teaches in his response to the first question. That man (second question) can easily reply to Spitzer — "you say that Scripture is wrong about creation, yet you want me to believe it regarding Jesus Christ? Why should I do that — am I not, then, just believing YOU and what YOU pick and choose to be true? I can do that myself — and I say the whole thing is false." At least the second man is consistent: if Scripture is false here and there, why should it be true anywhere else?

    And if the very first account even mentioned in Scripture — the account of creation — is a "myth", then why should anyone even read past the first chapter of Genesis? If you open a history book and the first page claims that Napoleon was a Greek philosopher and that George Washington was a solider under Cesar Augustus, why would you even continue to read past the first page? And why would you hold that book to have any authority on its own merits?

    When does Scripture start to "become true" to Spitzer? If Genesis is a "myth", then why isn't the crucifixion a "myth"? I would be willing to bet that Spitzer thinks the Flood is a myth, too, which is pretty bad, considering that Jesus Christ Himself speaks of the Flood as true event of devastating global effect (Matthew 24).

    If the Scriptures are wrong literally from their very beginning — literally, from the first pages, in which Adam and Eve and Creation are specifically described — then why trust them at all? This is why I say that the first and second questions are directly related.

    Spitzer doesn't seem to see that the error of false evolution history as "fact" is the central error of our time (and likely one of the errors of Russia that Our Lady warned us about). How can anyone be surprised that when you incorrectly teach people (in direct contradiction of Scripture) that God specifically created and intended DEATH as part of His "Divine plan", and that humans are the offspring of brute animals, and that Scripture is wrong and untrustworthy, that those people will come to doubt the faith, reject Scripture, and despise God — if they even believe in God at all after hearing all that nonsense?

    Specifically, for evolution history to be true, there must have been suffering, disease, misery, and death before the Fall. In other words — this "god" must have created the entire universe and all its inhabitants to suffer, moan, decay, and die. That is a very psychotic "god" — a "god" who creates out of nothing only to watch his creatures suffer in misery and die and decay; that is the "god" who creates in order to destroy. Why would someone love such a "god" who imposed death, suffering, and misery as part of its "plan" of "creation"?

    That is ludicrous: people would be correct to disbelieve in such a psycho "god" of death….which is exactly why false belief in evolution history as "true" is the single shortest path to atheism we have ever known, and also the quickest path to rejecting Jesus Christ and His Church. The real God — the Holy Trinity — is not this psychotic "god" of death: the Holy Trinity is the God of Life. He created everything perfectly, in perfect harmony, and we (us — humans) messed it up through our sins, and through our sins bought death upon all His creatures. Genesis is not a myth. Evolution history is a myth.

  • Peter D

    If evolution is true, wouldn't scripture be more forthcoming to write something like, "…and God brought forth the wild beast and from it formed a man"? But it doesn't, even when God breathes the breath of life into man, scripture already calls man, a man not an beast. The Hebrews were very specific with their choice of words
    I believe. Eve was formed directly from a fully formed man, no ambiguity there at all. (Gen:2 v 23.) So if people of God believe in some form of evolution theory, doesn't it sound like a bizarre option for God to take, He, who has the power to create absolutely everything out of nothing, to come to earth as the incarnate God/Man by an miraculous Virgin birth, then have to form a man out of a beast and then a woman out of a human and give her to an ex-ape?
    We have to remember also that God himself Jesus, was born of a Woman, The Blessed Virgin,Mother of God, His ancestry would also by the definition of evolution also make Jesus' ancestors
    apes. That's how stupid this whole consideration becomes. May The Almighty forgive me if I offended Him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *