The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1912-06-22


the Esaurian (717-741), there occurred
a separation of the Church. One fac
ton became known as the Greek
Church; the other the Latin Church.
The Greek Church, according to prom
inent historians, was independent Of
the Pope. Does this separation still
exist? If not, when did a reunion take
place and how?
1. The Church has made no pro-
nouncement regarding Darwin's the
DRY of evolution which seeks to &C
count for the origin of species by
means of natural selection. Many
people are under the impression that
Darwin originated the theory of evolu-
ton, though, as matter of fact, it was
pr0pounded before his time He gave
it new form by making the origin
of new species depend on the sur
vival of the fittest in the struggle for
existence. In regard to evolution it
may be said that no theory which
denies the existence of personal
Creator can be accepted by the
Church The theory of evolution
viewed merely as a scientific n.y.
pothesis or philosophical speculation
does not exclude the creative act of
God and is in harmony with the Chris
tan view of the universe. There is a
materialistic theory of evolution which
does not acknowledge Creator and
this, of course, cannot be accepted by
Christians. The common opinion of
theo1ogians is against the theory of
evolution as applied to the creation of
man. There are Catholic scientists
who, while accepting the Church's
teaching in regard to the direct crea'
ton of the human soul, believe that
the human body has come to it's pres
ent state of perfection as result of
evolution from lower forms, While
this theory is not common in the
Church it has not been condemned.
2. There was Greek Church prior
to the separation mentioned in the
foregoing question, but it was Greek
Church in communion with Rome. At
the time of the Schism a portion of
the Greek Church separated from
Rome and and became known as the
Schismatic Greek Church, or as it is
often called, the Orthodox Greek
Church. 1t is not an easy matter to
give a brief exposition of the causes
which led to, and finally brought about,
the Greek Schism. After the death
of the Emperor Constantine the rela-
lions between Rome and the Greek
Church were not always cordial. In
deed, during the succeeding five CEN
turtles the Greek Church was in open
schism, that is, separated from Rome,
for more than half the time. In the
reign of Leo the Isaurian the Greek
Church broke with Rome on the ques-
ton of image worship and this schism
continued for a period of siXty-one
years. What is usually called the
Greek Schism, or the Great Schism,
did not occur until the time of Photius
who, in the year 859, usurped the
position of Patriarch of Constantinople
then rightfully held by Ignatius, who
was deposed for refusing communion
to the Emperor Bardus, public sin
ner. In $50 Photius was deposed by
the Emperor Leo vi; and between
the years 1913 and 901 the Greek and
Latin Churches were reconciled. Dur
ing the tenth and the first part of the
eleventh century the relations between
them we're cordial. In 1854 Michael
Caerularius succeeded in bringing
about a schism to satisfy his selfish
designs. Various causes of dissatis-
faction with Rome were assigned by
him and most of the clergy, the monks
and the Greek people fell away. The
breach then made has never been
healed. Many Popes have tried to
effect a reunion, but in vain. Brief
reconciliations were brought about by
the Council of Lyons in 1874 and that
of Florence in 1889; but since that
time all efforts to reunite the churches
have proved unavailing. A part of
the Greek Church always remained
united to Rome and today there is a
Greek Church in communion with the
Roman Catholic Church.
I. Why is our Lord called the son
of David? 2 Is it sin against the
second commandment to say "oh My
God" and "For Gods Sake" just as a
byword, and if sin, what kind is it?
8. Were the Blessed Virgin Mary and
st. Joseph married before the annun.
citation?
l. The expression Son OF David
when applied to our Lord does not
mean that David was His father in the
ordinary sense of that word. It signi-
fies that our Lord was of the house
of David, that Is to say, He could trace
His ancestry back to King David. 2.
Such expressions are, ordinarily at
least, not more than venial sins of
irreverence, in so far as they are a
vain use of sacred names. If these
expressions are used with respect and
piety, or as an exclamation in time OF
r~s-