Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Catholic Central — Not So Catholic on This Issue

Well, the video is 6~7 years old, maybe they have changed, but they haven't taken it down:

Creation & Evolution | Catholic Central
Catholic Central | 10 Nov. 2017

2:00 Whether Louis Pasteur was a Catholic believer or not is disputed.

Dans les dernières années du xixe siècle et les premières du xxe siècle, l'apologétique catholique attribuait volontiers à Pasteur la phrase « Quand on a bien étudié, on revient à la foi du paysan breton. Si j'avais étudié plus encore j'aurais la foi de la paysanne bretonne »287.

En 1939 (l'entre-deux-guerres a été la grande époque de l'Union rationaliste), Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, petit-fils de Louis Pasteur, fait cette déclaration : « Mon père a toujours eu soin, et ma mère également d'ailleurs, de dire que Pasteur n'était pas pratiquant. Si vous ouvrez la Vie de Pasteur, vous verrez que mon père parle du spiritualisme et non du catholicisme de Pasteur. Je me souviens parfaitement de l'irritation de mon père et de ma mère, quand quelque prêtre, en chaire, se permettait de lui attribuer cette phrase qu'il n'a jamais dite : « J'ai la foi du charbonnier breton. » (…) Toute la littérature qui a été écrite sur le prétendu catholicisme de Pasteur est absolument fausse »288.

En 1994-1995, Maurice Vallery-Radot, arrière-petit-neveu de Pasteur 289, ne se contente pas du spiritualisme, du théisme de Pasteur. Il tient que Pasteur resta, au fond, catholique, même s'il n'allait pas régulièrement à la messe290.

Dans son livre Pasteur paru en 1896 (éd. Gauthier-Vilars), Charles Chappuis, son ami d'enfance, témoigne que Louis Pasteur se rendait à Notre-Dame de Paris pour écouter les sermons de carême.

Après le décès de sa petite fille Jeanne, en 1859, il écrit à un proche qu’elle « vient d’aller au Ciel pour prier pour nous ».

So do different voices referenced in good old wiki diverge.

2:41 "when we discover more about the truths about the universe through science"

Nice principle. And not when we pretend to discover things that aren't true, through pseudo-science.

Which of these applies closer to Evolution?

Note, for clarity, 17 species in 5 genus of hedgehogs evolving from an original hedgehog couple on the Ark is a Creationist position. We are not species fixists.

Part of why certain priests in the late 19th C. came to fudge certain factors about Biblical inerrancy, like specifically Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux (C. S. Sulp.) holding to a non-global, only very large regional, Flood, is he thought the (then) rejection of Evolution needed to mean species fixism. If every species today was as separate from every other species today back when created as today, we would not have had room on the Ark for a couple of each. Check Baraminology. I hold that Atelerix Algirus and Hemiechinus auritus both came from a common ancestor.

But evolution is closer to claims like:

"Hedgehogs, cats and dogs also had a common ancestor."
"Apes and men had a common ancestor that was not human."
"Man gradually evolved from non-human ancestors."

3:08 Creation story figurative?

Not in any Bible book referring back to it.
Not in Our Lord's words.
Not in the Apostolic Fathers.
Not in the Church Fathers.
Not in the Scholastics.

At a date of 1920, Paris, that religion or religion building exegesis is actually younger than Luther's Deformation in Wittenberg by c. 400 years. The Jesuit E. Mangenot, in the article Hexaëmeron, in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Paris, 1920, invented this.

He totally admitted that all Catholic authors prior to 1830 had taken the creation account literally. I'm not sure of he mentioned St. Augustine's famous one-moment creation theory, but apart from the word "day" and the related words "evening, morning" he actually does take it literally.

He enumerated authors for three position, literal, Day-Age, Gap Theory (exactly as in today's Fundie-Sphere) up to c. 1896. Then he invented his theory, 4 years before a Calvinist coined "Frame-Work Theory" ... because he thought he could refute all three previous ones. The literal one is partly attacked on grounds of thinking it implied Species Fixism, and partly by thinking the Pyrenees had risen very much like the Himalaya, only much, much earlier, and eroded much much more, which is incompatible with literal Biblical chronology. Plus Pyrenees being too high to have been covered by a world wide Flood involving the amount of water we can observe.

A Creationist obviously doesn't agree on the Pyrenees, these like the Himalaya rose after the Flood, and the Pyrenees in a somewhat different way.

My lady, your parish needs to sack its catechist and also ban him or her from holding RCIA classes!

3:14 There are poetic passages in the Bible, even an entire book of them.

The creation account doesn't feature their characteristics.

3:23 I think the very longest era that "yom" could mean is "bime Noah" (in the days of Noe, though the Hebrew for Isaias 54:9 has "me Noah" = waters of Noe, confer II Paralip. 32:26 "bime yeHizqiyahu" in the days of Hezechias).

Noah got older than Hezechias, so the absolutely longest period that "days of" can refer to in any given Bible passage, apart from "theoretical possibility + gratuitous speculation" is 950 years.

Probably both Isaias and Our Lord referred only to parts of the 950 years when speaking of "days of Noe" ...

3:29 Father Mangenot SJ already debunked that one.

Geology has not found a series of epochs that could link to the creation days.

I find that far more cogent than his dismissal of the literal view.

I'd cite him against Day-Agers as much as I would cite Luther against Evangelicals believing Our Lord had younger siblings born from Our Lady.

"3:29 LIBBY: What's most important is how Genesis shows us God's 3:31 relationship with creation and ultimately, with humanity."

Where exactly? In that issue, Genesis 1 doesn't directly say more than a far shorter passage in the Creed. Creatorem coeli et terrae. Genesis 1 doesn't even take up "invisibilium" ...

All the rest is how, in what order, so when and for how long God created, the exact things you have just contradicted. As did Mangenot in 1920.

3:34 KAI: Science is the observation of the physical world.
3:37 LIBBY: So it can't definitively say 3:39 that God had no hand in creation.
3:41 KAI: And it can't tell us why anything happens, either.
3:43 LIBBY: Or whether it should.

Forgot sth. Science is the repeatable observation of the physical world in its usual workings in the present.

Therefore it also cannot tell us what specific things happened in the past. At the utmost, it may impose some kind of limits on some processes, and as far as I can see, none of these preclude any process implied by Young Earth Creationism (rapid rise of post-Flood mountains or rapid rise of carbon 14 in the post-Flood atmosphere included).

4:19 LIBBY: "...So Genesis"
4:20 KAI: "Which, how accurate can it be 4:22 if it doesn't even mention dinosaurs once?"

Given Pterosaurs and Plesiosaurs aren't properly speaking Dinosaurs, we need only 1 place in Genesis 1.

24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

This is the place for Pelycosaurs, Dinosaurs, Uintatheria, Unicorns (a k a Ceratopsians), and probably (unless they are lab experiments gone wrong in the Nodian civilisation of the pre-Flood era) even Biarmosuchians.

For Pterosaurs and Plesiosaurs, see previous creation day.

4:35 KAI: Pope quote! 4:36 As Pope Benedict said when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger,
4:39 "The Biblical story of the dust of the earth and the 4:42 breath of God does not, in fact, explain how human persons 4:45 come to be, but rather, it tells us what they are."

Certain other views of how they came to be are incompatible with what they are.

This quote is at least a weak proof, maybe even if analysed, a strong proof, that Ratzinger was a heretic prior to his supposed election.

5:34 LIBBY: "The creation story in the Bible makes the most sense 5:37 as a framework to the supernatural love and peace 5:40 that Christ comes to offer the world."

Sure. And Adam and Eve evolving from other creatures of similar anatomy but not their own status makes the least sense of it.

6:10 ouch ...

You just contradicted the Bible twice over KAI!

6:07 KAI: "The process of creation has never ended. 6:09 Ever since the Big Bang, 6:10 God hasn't stopped shaping the universe."

Genesis 2:1 So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. (Plus later references, including in the Exodus text of the commandments).

Ecclesiasticus 18:1 He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever

No comments: