Monday, October 3, 2016

... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism

1) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism · 2) ... continued · 3) ... and continued · 4) ... on "Catholic" Anti-Creationism - end of video

Note, I stopped video at 13:00 minutes before collecting and reposting the comments made thitherto:

Mysteries of the Church: Creation and Evolution

6:46 Ruiz (not calling YOU reverend or father, see Cum Ex Apostolatus ...) would any Catholic Bible scholar by any chance have called the views of St Thomas Aquinas, St Robert Bellarmine, St Augustine, St Basil "fundamentalist"?

7:21 Cush (see previous comment), what exact Creationist have you come across saying "Dinosaur fossils were just put in there to test our faith"? To me that sounds like a homo foeni

7:33 Strynkowski (see previous comments), "they want a security" doesn't kind of echo Protestant criticism of Catholicism as seeking a false security in Infallibility and Apostolic Succession? Aren't you playing the kind of psychologist whom Catholic apologists previous to V-II used to rebut? Like "such a security is nevertheless needed, unless you want complete doctrinal anarchy" or like "whether we have a motive is not reflecting against our being right" or some things?

7:49 The Church would never forbid a Catholic to hold that position. Thank you Father (?) Wiseman! I have however been treated as if my holding this position were forbidden. Both by diocese of Paris and by SSPX in Paris, at St Nicolas du Chardonnet.

8:00 One is able to explore such questions as the age of the universe using human reason. Oh sure, to a point. To a point. One of the criteria reason having to chose between these days being "what is the more credible evidence about the matter, between Martyrology of Christmas day* based by St Jerome on Biblical genealogies on the one hand and on the other hand dating methods where even half life cannot be checked, and where parallax measures of distance depend on accepting counterintuitive Heliocentrism, and on top of that seeing the Bible as it has never been seen before and changing the Christmas proclamation in 1994 to 'unknown ages' for the Anno Mundi date of Christ's birth?" My reason has made its choice and I have not been considered as a Catholic while defending it by reasons.

* Christmas vigil is when it is said, technically on Matins of Christmas day, though usually this happens somewhat earlier in Midnight Mass. "In the year five thousand one hundred and ninety nine after the beginning when God created Heaven and Earth ..."

8:17 "That is not healthy". As far as I know, no Creationists are Skoptsy. And as far as I know, the Skoptsy couldn't care less about Genesis chapter 1. I think you - forgot your name and certainly not calling YOU father - are superstitiously relying on "psychological analysis". As for "isolated and difficult to talk to" YOUR kind of attitude is making certain kinds of company, including YOURS uncomfortable to Creationists.

Back to Father Wiseman. 8:28 "In my opinion, that makes God a kind of trickster" Father Wiseman, we agree that God is not a trickster. I suppose your argument goes sth like "such and such a piece of evidence, which the scientists are certain cannot be reconciled with a young earth, is nevertheless created by God - would God be fooling them?" Well, an astrologer could argue that such and such a position of planets and stars in relation to Earth (like Sun in Virgo, Pisces in Ascendant, as I happen to know is my case) was created by God. And he would also be certain that this means something about those born under that circumstance, like about me. Are you saying astrology works? Or are you saying God is fooling the astrologer? Or could there be some third alternative? Hint, I think I can guess what you would say about the honest astrologer who pretends to know my character from facts like being born 18:15 in early September (Sun in Virgo, Ascendant in Pisces being guaranteed that date and time of day). And I think I would make a VERY parallel case about the scientist pretending to know the age of Earth as it is NOT written out in the Bible.

8:41 "If we fail to recognise that the Bible is an ANCIENT document" (emphasis that of Ruiz) ... and so? Ancients didn't care about truth? Ancients didn't know how to get it? Ancients were misled by superstitions inherent simply in their time? None of this works in any way whatsoever, if you know any history correctly!

8:48 "the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook" Homo foeni. 8:55 "It was in fact meant to be that collection of authoritative TESTIMONY" Before we get a collection, we get testimony. And that in Genesis reaches back to the first man and the first woman. 8:57 "to God's revelation" Yes, and if first man and first woman were misled by God or by circumstances God either couldn't or didn't want to help, how is that testimony authoritative? For instance, check how we know Fall of Eve and Adam into Sin, and its conjoint Proto-Gospel. If you are not taking Adam and Eve literally, why do you take literally "ponam inimicitias"?

9:16 The Church teaching for the last hundred years. OK, what exact document from 1916 or 1909 (!) do you propose to document this ancientness of your view?

9:41 True, but not scientifically true. If you mean scientific precision, like exact number of years between Promise to Abraham and Giving of Law (430 or 425?), you may have a point. If you mean scientific relevance (like in same thing 430 solar years or 430 lunar months), you don't have a point at all.

9:55 "it teaches us to rely on this higher power" Sorry, this wording is not quite Catholic. Are you promoting AA, who are using that heterodox and vague description?

10:21 "what we have in Genesis is an expression of faith" Of faith in God and in certain kinds of traditions, in a certain obvious sense "of men" (I think Christ used the word "traditions of men" in a very different and pregnant sense, like when he said "thy thoughts are human thoughts"). Science is also an expression of faith. In observation and thus also in traditions of men recounting observations. And in logic. In the case of Old Earth, it is a faith in the arguments for an Old Earth, they certainly don't claim millions of years have been accurately observed and transmitted by our ancestors. Dito for a univers billions of light years across. Dito for other arguments for other points in this ideology called science, but differring hugely from electro-mechanics or zoology.

10:33 It's remarcable that hundreds of years before Christ Israelites saw God as Creator?

So did Plato. When did Timaeus become part of the canon of Bible on par with Genesis?

The point not being this but being that is a bit like saying the Bible is ONLY inerrant when speaking "to its point" and hugely fallible by misleading language any other time.

11:17 "all that is is moving toward full redemption by that same loving God"?

Hmmm ... I think Apocalypse as well as Fifth Council of the Church have sth to say about that, which is not quite what you are saying, Wiseman?

"There is in other words a point to life" - and if some souls and angelic beings are to remain lost forever, there wouldn't be?

11:48 Noted Ruiz, taking a narrative as Church Fathers have taken it would be hugely mistaken ... hmmm ... Trent had something to say, perhaps?

11:54 Error we call Fundamentalism - condemned as error by what Council of the Church? Or perhaps you refer to some document by Wojtyla and Ratzinger in 1993 or 1994? Are you sure these men were in a position to speak for the Church? I am after seeing it certain they were not.

12:00 Pretending that the Biblical texts were written by contemporary authors. Pretending? Have you read FATHER George Leo Haydock's comment to Genesis 3?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Haydock Bible Commentary, Genesis 3

I recently learned that St Augustine differs from Haydock in saying earliest traditions were unwritten.

Oh, 12:05 you meant contemporary to US?

Like anyone assuming any old author contains any fact is erring therein? Or are you singling out Bible books unfairly, like saying Egyptian King lists have more authority in chronology than Biblical Chronoloogy?

12:11 We don't ever have this literalist approach to Holy Scripture? Well, Catholics like St Augustine had, so you are counting yourself out of their (and my, which is less important but worth noting) company!

12:21 "he inspires them to say the truth as THEY understand the truth" And what about "qui locutus est per prophetas"? It's not "qui prophetas fecit loqui"!

12:32 "an allegorical Hebrew cosmology" Do you seriously know what literary genre allegory is? Psychomachia, Roman de la Rose, Pilgrim's Progress, Pilgrim's Regress (by CSL, with reference to previous work) are all allegories. Can you coherently explain as opposed to just affirming that Hebrew cosmology was of same literary genre as these works?

12:47 "whether you accept Genesis literally or as a metaphor for a MUCH greater truth" ... What exact other and greater truth would that be, how is it greater and how is Genesis a metaphor for it?