[Published on Pentecost Day:] New blog on the kid: Can Old Earthers Still Believe Mankind Was Created 10 000 Years Ago? · Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism · Fr. Robinson, Part 2 · Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man) (the last one was actually for the afternoon, but here we go)
Are Catholics Obliged to Be Young Earth Creationists? - Questions with Father #42 - Fr. Robinson
SSPX News - English | 19 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCfWVzZ1nMo
2:59 There are broadly speaking three roughly speaking literal interpretations of Genesis 1 or Hexaemeron.
I'm grouping St. Augustine's one-moment-creationism, at the point when St. Thomas arrived to Paris clearly favoured by him, with the "six literal days" interpretation, since neither of them has the creation work exceed a week.
The two others are 1) gap theory, the creation days are literal days, but started after the earth had been made empty and void by a previous disaster. And 2) day age. Let me be very precise about what day age is properly speaking. It's not that since yom could be interpreted as longer periods any dilution of creation acts over long time in any relation to human archaeology is possible. It's that yom interpreted as period refers to six distinct periods of geology, and also that these end when Adam is created, at the beginning of the Biblical timeline as per Genesis 5 and 11. In day age, as supported by its initial or most prominent promoter, Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux, who was allowed to adjudicate in favour of his position in 1909, all human remains belong to descendants of Adam and Eve, and all of them fit within the time frames possible by different texts of Genesis 5 and 11 that number of 2000--3000 years prior to Abraham.
He did say one could be obliged to also extend the Genesis 11 genealogy by more omitted generations, more than just the Second Cainan, omitted from Hebrew and Samaritan, present in LXX standard editions as well as the standard editions of St. Luke, but as "at present" he didn't think that was necessary by geology, he never explored either limits or consequences of such omissions.
In other words, a day age theory remaining faithful to Fulcran Vigouroux, and to the judgement of 1909, would need to accept either that Neanderthals were strictly non-human, which is impossible after Svante Pääbo's sequencing of the El Sidrón genome, among quite a few other reasons, or that all Neanderthals fall within the last 7000 or 7500 years. Which means, at least dating methods of the radiometric type need to be adjusted to Young Earth Creationism.
One can put it like this, the law of 1909 or case law of 1909, has not been canonically abolished, but it has been voided by events putting the allowed theory without any rational content. If Noah made a special law about Atlantis (some Spanish theologians speculated the Americas got peopled via Atlantis before it sank, so a post-Flood sinking of Atlantis is no heresy), that law would not need to be abolished to no longer apply, but it would have been voided by the sinking of Atlantis. Similarily, the permission to a Fulcran-Vigouroux style day age theory has not been formally abolished, but it has sunk as a scientific option. Any contemporary Old Earth view will validate 40 000 years of La Ferrassie, not just as an apparent carbon age due to much lower initial carbon 14, but as the real age. And any believer in Evolution of any kind, but also a simple believer in biology will believe that we have ancestry among that tribe.
Now, stating there were human populations and individuals 40 000 years ago will wreak much more havoc with the faith than stating millions of years precede a first man created 7000 years ago.
You have (then) two options on two questions, A:
- Neanderthals were real men or
- Neanderthals were not men, just beasts
- Adam lived before
- or did not live before those dated 40 000 years ago.
So, how can they combine?
- Neanderthals were real men, descending from Adam, who lived more than 40 000 years ago. Consequence : Genesis 3 is not humanly transmitted history. It can hardly be defended as true by prophecy either, since a) no one claimed Genesis 3 falls under "God spoke to Moses and said" or under a vision on Sinai, as some have claimed for the six days, and b) this would leave Genesis 5 and 11 as either hugely sloppy history or even worse, inaccurate prophecy. One would have to discard Moses quicker than Catherine Emerick in that case!
- Neanderthals were not real men, did not descend from Adam, who still lived more than 40 000 years ago. Combines consequences of previous with consequences of following.
- Neanderthals were not real men, did not descend from Adam, who lived more recently. The problem of how in that case we all descend from acts of basically bestiality, at least in the dimension of lack of consent. Adam living much more recently has one more problem, which is apparent in the last:
- Neanderthals were real men, did not descend from Adam, who lived more recently. Adam is therefore not the first man.
In other words, each option is catastrophic.
However, denying that a carbon date of 40 000 years means an actual chronological distance of 40 000 years is not catastrophic. The initial content of carbon 14 is assessed by a kind of indirect reasoning from other (even less reliable) dating methods, or as a postulate, this is how carbon 14 dating works, therefore we go with it, so we shall be able to use it.
Hence, as Eugène Mangenot noted, the day age and gap theory versions of literal meaning won't work.
It's interesting how he reasoned why the most classical version of literal meaning wouldn't work either. a) Water amounts prove that Himalayas and Alps cannot have been there before a world wide Flood, so, suppose one can say they were created in their present shape by processes set in motion by the Flood, YEC would hold, b) but this won't work because even the Pyrenees are much too high for the levels of a world wide Flood, responsible for all fossils (or most), and the Pyrenees are much older than Himalayas or Alps c) which he bases on the idea that the Pyrenees were formed in the same way as Himalayas and Alps, but has a more rounded shape due to thousands or millions of years of longer erosion time.
So, his reason for also debunking YEC has itself become highly debunkable. The then theories of how mountains rose and eroded are now admitted to be not quite covering all of the scope of options. A YEC would answer, the Pyrenees simply rose in a different way.
3:26 You pretend that Geocentrism has no bearing on the Catholic faith.
A young priest in St. Nicolas de Chardonnet, preaching on Ascension day last year, answered "where is heaven" (the place where the blessed go) with basically, "instead of a physical place Jesus' body functions as physical place" which is contrary to how we as Catholics view the dimensions of Jesus' body.
a) He is present under the dimensions of bread and wine in the Eucharist, by a special miracle, as a special exception to the normal course, but
b) He is primarily present under the dimensions of His own body, as they touch the surrounding place, in Heaven.
So, by now, Geocentrism-denial leads to Eucharistic at least heterodoxy.
3:51 More important than animal death, given some Church Fathers, was there any wasteful suffering for animals before Adam sinned?
More important than animal suffering, was there any suffering for Adam before he sinned?
If he had been born to non-human beings of human anatomy, they would not have known how to use human language. It is impossible for bestial vocalisation systems to evolve to human language. So, if Adam had been born to such, he would have been a feral child. He could only have acquired language and been able to speak with God through a separation from "his own" ...
The ultimate consequence about the "option B" of Humani Generis was to portray God as cruel against Adam before he had sinned, which may well have been what God punished by withdrawing people like McCarrick from His protection from certain immoral acts.
5:18 Let's cite Humani Generis, shall we?
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith."
So, you are giving your opinion as experienced in sacred theology, that the position favourable to, if not directly the evolutionary origin of Adam's body, at least the setting in which this is most commonly accepted, is OK from the side of theology.
Pius XII stipulated that the other side also should have its say, which can logically only mean, the guys who think sacred theology actually has a bearing, and a clearly prohibitive one, on modern views on science (falsely so called).
But perhaps you would like to ensnare this contrary view to your own as transgressing the following:
"be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure,"
The problem here is, a) you have admitted that the debate is already beyond that, and b) you are yourself grabbing, since you pretend my side is overstepping the limits of Church teaching.
"basically from the time when a lot of new geological science and astronomical 6:10 science was coming to the four and it was the first time that the human race 6:15 really was able to get hard data that might inform us about how old the earth 6:21 and the universe are um when that basically from from the time that started up to Vatican 2 basically 1850 6:29 to to 1960 I I took a look at um Catholic theological manuals for 6:35 scripture that basically the text books for seminaries what what was being taught in seminaries about scripture 6:42 about Genesis um Catholic encyclopedia uh various magisterial 6:48 statements um the the the catechism various catechisms and even reviews 6:56 scriptural reviews where where like the high intellectuals in the church were getting together discussing these 7:02 questions and to be honest Andrew um I I could not find young Earth creationists"
Let me make two observations.
I) Heliocentrism, parallactic distances, geological time are not hard data. They are conclusions, for each of them conclusions in a specific paradigm.
Heliocentrism can be proven necessary by atheism or probable by aliens or "known" by blind trust in the impression we get from Newton or Laplace.
Parallactic distances depend on Heliocentrism and also on denying that 20 arc seconds is parallax, stating it is instead aberration.
Geologic time depends on denying Flood Geology.
II) Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, for Hexaëmeron article, 1920, has a modernist author, not Alfred Loisy, but like Jimmy Akin kind of modernist, the Jesuit Eugène Mangenot.
He arrives, for the first time he is aware of, to the conclusion of "framework theory" or in his version "the six days was a literary figure freely chosen, not a statement falling under inerrant inspiration" ... BUT he did give a list for defenders of each of the positions he rejects, these being in order "literalism" (six literal days at the start of the universe, followed by Biblical chronology), "day age" (six long periods), "gap theory" (the six days are literal, but occur after a disaster overshadowing even the Flood, leaving the Earth "tohu wa bohu").
These three positions (and the one moment creation dear to St. Augustine doesn't all that much differ from the first, compared to the others) are all what Evangelicals would recognise as the Fundamentalist spectrum.
For day age, I can offhand name Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux, Sulpician, who also signed the judgement in 1909, which on my view allows a day age theory that is no longer compatible with what the "hard data" (falsely so called) would require.
For gap theory, Cardinal Wiseman.
For "literalism" I took careful notes. Here are the Roman Catholic predecessors of Henry Morris:
C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Mose's Leipzig, 1866
P. Laurent, Études géologiques, philosophiques et scripturales sur la cosmogonie de Moïse Paris, 1863
A. Saignet, La cosmologie de la Bible Paris, 1854
J. E. Veith, Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt Vienne, 1865
A. Bosizio, Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie Mayence, 1864
Idem Die Geologie und die Sündfluth Mayence, 1877
V. M. Gatti, Institutiones apologeticae-polemicae 1867
A. Trissl, Sündfluth oder Gletscher ; Das Biblische Sechstagewerk 2e édit. Munich, Ratisbonne, 1894
G. J. Burg, Biblische Chronologie Trèves, 1894
7:49 "a position called Old Earth Creationism"
There are at least three different positions so called, even if you exclude Theistic Evolution.
Gap Theory, promoted by Cardinal Wiseman, fudges with Genesis 1:2, putting millions of years (or sth similar, whatever his version of Geologic Deep Time was) between Earth being created, and Earth supposedly becoming void and empty. This is the position of Kenneth Copeland, a known televangelist.
Day Age, properly speaking, as promoted, perhaps invented, by Fulcran Vigouroux, fudges with the creation days, but in the opposite direction to St. Augustine and a few other one-moment creationists. The question of the meaning range for "yom" or "day" is not the whole story, since Mark 10:6 and Luke 11:50,f do not forbid one moment creationism, but would in an obvious sense conflict with Old Earth Creationism. Well, Fulcran Vigoroux missed that, but please note, the only thing he fudged with is creation days. Once day six ends, Adam is created, and Biblical chronology as previously held (at least some version of it, he probably preferred Syncellus) starts. This is the position of the Watchtower Society.
Neither of these is strictly speaking the position of any scientist or anyone doing scientific apology for the faith. Contrast the following.
There is a third position. One gives deep time what it takes, the creation days can overlap, one is not sure whether Adam was biologically the first man, and if he was one is not sure whether he really lived anywhere as recently as Biblical chronology would require. That is the position of Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana. Now, one of the problems is, this generally involves "man from outside Eden" -- biologically human, but not the image of God, intermarried with Adam's children, and their children (or even themselves on marriage) became the image of God. Neanderthals to these are simply not human. This is a very monstruous position, I think by now it would logically follow from Pius XII endorsing a 5 billion year old earth. If he knew that, he publically defected from the faith in 1951, possibly after being c. one year a purely material Pope, by his refusal in Humani Generis to give correct pastoral. The one saving grace for him could have been, not saying it was, he did not know what his position would imply.
8:01 "it was certainly orthodox, it was not considered to be against the teaching of the Church"
It was not known in Wiseman's or Fulcran Vigouroux' day what it would involve as to statements about man.
In 1900, but not in 2000, one could, while accepting scientific raw data and applying the paradigm of Old Earth/Deep Time:
- believe that no human skeleton, either Sapiens Sapiens or Neanderthal (or at least the former) was older than 7000 years old;
- believe that Neanderthals had shown no human behaviour;
- believe that we did not descend from Neanderthals in part (well, that perhaps changed just a bit later, in 2009).
These solutions are no longer available. You would hardly say we can still believe the Blessed Virgin was human and endowed with grace only 40 days into the pregnancy, since that kind of pre-modern embryology is held by noone, it is known to be faulty, genetically as well as for other reasons. And yet some have held that, as I recall. This does not mean we are still at liberty to hold it.
Likewise, if the consequences of Old Earth, when we look at ancient human skeleta, accumulate monstruous assumptions and contradictions with the Biblical account, the Old Earth positions that were possible in 1900 are no longer so.
8:37 "the majority adopted ...at the time of this information coming in"
That's very impressionistic.
In fact, in France the turning point was certainly not Lyell's work Principles of Geology 1830.
In 1860, or the 1860's the majority of priests were Young Earth Creationists. By 1880 or at least into the 1880's the majority were Old Earth. This is the time when Fulcran Vigouroux wrote his manual.
If I understood the comments in Hexaëmeron article from 1920 correctly, the rejection of Young Earth came about for this reason:
- Young Earth = fossils are from the Flood.
- Fossils are from the Flood = all of earth was covered.
- All of earth was covered = all mountains too high rose only after the Flood.
And while this was at first no problem for the Himalayas and the Alps, one calculated that the Pyrenees too would have exceeded the water depth with the water available on earth.
Well, why not believe the Pyrenees also rose after the Flood? Because one was over confident in geologists claiming the Pyrenees had been a shape similar to Alps and Himalaya, but had since then eroded over geological deep time. The idea was, the Pyrenees would not have been able to form directly as they now stand. The YEC answer to this would be, check with Tas Walker if you like, the Pyrenees simply didn't rise exactly the same way as the Alps and the Himalayas, not forgetting the Andes.
In Germany and Austria, the YEC position was being defended in new books as late as 1890's.
In Paris, the latest I found in the 1920 article was from 1863.
A possible reason for the change in the Germanies would be, one author put a problem in the terms "Glaciers or Deluge?" ... he basically denied there was even one ice age. The Young Earth Creationists today would rather say there was an ice age after the Flood. Some would put it as late as after Babel, mainly, for my part, I think the same higher influx of radioactive particles that hastened the buildup of Carbon 14, that also shortened human lifespans, was also responsible for chilling the weather, so the ice age was basically between Flood and Babel, in Noah's remaining lifespan after the Flood (I put Babel between Noah's death and the birth of Peleg, 401 after the Flood, see Roman Martyrology positing 942 years between Flood and Birth of Abraham, meaning LXX without the second Cainan). That's another pseudo-problem for Young Earth Creationism that has since been solved. A third one was, Fulcran Vigouroux was species fixist. No evolution from wolf to dog or from hedgehog to hedgehog. Young Earth Creationists today basically disagree on that premise. I hold that Atelerix Algirus and Hemiechinus auritus and Erinaceus concolor all descend from just one hedgehog couple on the Ark. Hence the Ark was, unlike what Fulcran Vigouroux thought in 1880, sufficient for all animals on earth today. Hence all or most fossils could be from the Flood.
9:53 I think you may have overlooked a synod of Cologne in the 1860's. I think that one was the first reaction to Darwin's book.
But apart from that, confer Honorius and Sergius, tolerating and directly promoting Monotheletism. St. Sophronius stood up at the time, but few or no one else, and only 50 years later was Montheletism condemned, and Pope St. Leo II confirmed the condemnation.
In 1900, no Catholic promoting Old Earth foresaw it would one time lead to the conundrum and non-decision of 1950, Humani Generis.
10:10 Trying to be more Catholic than "papież Jan Paweł II"?
Trying to be more Catholic than "Benedikt XVI."?
Who was famous for that, I wonder, not to mention than "Papa Paolo VI"? And even than documents signed at a certain "Ecumenical Council"?
There was a time when I wholeheartedly admired your founder. Maybe that's why I "try to be more Catholic than some of the most Catholic people" ...
10:32 Can you show any Church document, not seminary manual, but Church document, prior to 1992, that actually taught that earth was older than Biblical chronology?
Apart from the allocution in 1951, where this was (at best) an obiter dictum in the argumentation against atheism, if so.
12:24 "Louis L.R. Morrow was born of an Ecumenical marriage on 24th December, 1892, at Weatherford, Texas, USA. His father Joseph LaRavoire was a French Catholic. His mother, Isabel Morrow, American born, was of Irish heritage, and a staunch New Jersey Episcopalian. They had three lovely children, Frank, Louis and Margarita. In 1921, "Luisito" was ordained priest in Puebla, Mexico. Thus began his glorious career of service. On 29th October, 1939, he was consecrated Bishop of Krishnagar, by Pope Pius XII, at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. His coat of arms bore the inscription, "To Jesus through Mary", as from an early age he was devoted to our Blessed Mother."
1) He had an Episcopalian mother, and they were Old Earth earlier.
2) He was named by Pius XII, who had deficient vigilance on the matter.
3) Like some archbishops of Paris who contribute not just to Old Earth, but to Evolutionism beyond what Pius XII would allow, his primary focus was on pastoral, not on doctrine.
He wanted to give an accessible catechism, did as best as he could, and it's on this particular topic slightly defective.
I suppose this is the author of the one you are quoting? You said "My Catholic Faith" and his page says "OUR CATHOLIC FAITH" ...
12:32 "A Catholic is free to hold on this point whatever he believes is a sound and scientific conclusion"
You are pretty obviously nearly excepting if he believes Young Earth Creationism is sound and scientific.
What he's giving is a reception of 1909 which probably already goes beyond what Fulcran Vigouroux allowed.
13:07 "The line of patriarchs which it gives, with their ages, probably contains many gaps."
Iugulum tetigisti!
There is no intrinsic probability for this, it is a speculation only made to accomodate to pretending man lived way beyond the Biblical chronology.
It would be some what pointless to give very meticulously age at begetting of sonfor patriarch after patriarch if there were no time measure involved.
The line in Matthew 1 contains very few gaps, and at least 3 of them can be explained as "three cursed generations" omitted for the sake of their progenitor Athaliah. One cannot extrapolate from this that gaps in genealogies was simply standard.
"Some Catholic theologians state that the age of man may be stretched to ten, or one hundred thousand years or even longer."
1) Contrary to the Bible.
2) As soon as you vastly bypass the timespan of 3000 + years from Adam to Abraham, you jeopardise the historical knowability of Genesis 3.
On this matter, not just Father George Leo Haydock, but also Sylvester Joseph Hunter in his Outlines of dogmatic theology 1895 New York : Benziger Brothers state that the source for Genesis was, for Moses, tradition. There is a vast difference between a tradition spanning, at most ...
2262 + 1170 + 720 = 4152 years
... an a tradition spanning at least ...
10 000 - 1950 - 1683 = 6367 years, and even more if you put the age of man well beyond 10 000 years.
Here is the bishop:
He, as an ardent advocate of women's right was convinced that justice and peace cannot prevail until and unless women have an equal voice in legislative assemblies throughout the world. As a true and devoted son of the Mother Church, its interest, growth, and expansion were of primary importance to him. He was most faithful in attending the meetings of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India. From 1969 to 1976 he was convener of the Assessment Committee of the CBCI.
[Like previous, from:
BISHOP LOUIS LARAVOIRE MORROW - OUR FOUNDER
https://www.bmitc.org/our-founder]
It doesn't seem like my highest prudent choice for Orthodoxy.
"It is generally admitted that the Bible teaches nothing definite"
Genesis 5, four values 1307 to 2262
Genesis 11, four values 290 to 1170
Abraham's birth to Exodus 505 or 720
Exodus to Christ 1460 to 1693
1307 + 290 + 505 + 1460 = 3562
2262 + 1170 + 720 + 1693 = 5845
While 3562 to 5845 is some leeway, it's definitely by orders of magnitude or even one of them.
13:44 The conclusion that "the Bible does not teach anything definite on the question of time" is arguably a then valid canonical dispensation from the strictness of faith, but I do not think it would be prudent to use it.
Also, the source makes the dispensation valid (back then) for Krishnagar. Not urbi et orbi.
Nor would Pope Michael II confirm it. Nor Peter III. If either of these two men is the real Pope, this dispensation is definitely no longer valid.
Since you pretend "Francis" is Pope, is it prudent to use the dispensation of fasting only Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, which your Pope promotes?
15:55 In 1935, it was scientifically possible still to be Old Earth while considering the age of man as within the Biblical chronology.
Also, given the quote, his erroneous acceptance of Heliocentrism may have led him to believe stars were 140 million years old, it does not follow he believed that Sun and Earth were that old.
One of the Young Earth positions is actually that "contemporaneous" is equated along light beams, so if a light beam was emitted 140 million years back, and reached earth on day IV, this still counts as the star being created on day IV, c. 6000 years ago, as that is the perspective from Earth.
I hold that to be deficient Young Earth Creationism, but it is at least Young Earth Creationism, and the quote so far does not disprove that this could have been Fr. Kolbe's position. Otherwise, I hope his position was Fulcran Vigouroux' that long periods ended with the creation of Adam within Biblical chronology. This could be held in 1935, when no human skeleta had radiocarbon dates beyond Biblical chronology, since no human skeleta had radiocarbon dates at all.
"yes they they have they they definitely have 16:19 um so I don't want to certainly I want to downplay um these these sources 16:26 and I'm going to get to other sources as well um for sure the the Seminary manuals you 16:33 have to remember that all these books they have to go through the process of getting the Nihil Obstat and the 16:39 Imprimatur as they say they they receive their approbation at a time when um the 16:45 church was very careful of about modernism"
They were negligent on the "scientific" front. Galileo syndrome, as Robert Sungenis would say. A fear pushed to the unreasonable that the Galileo trial had given the kind of scandal that St. Augustine in a very quotemined quote warned about.
I would submit, it's probable that not all dioceses had their own seminary manuals for their own seminary, it's probable that some seminaries used older manuals, or that the Professor of Old Testament used one of the manuals you think of, but at the same time supplemented it with some Young Earth material, which existed, like I mentioned Trissl and Athanasius Bosizio.
"because the the problems that were cropping up 16:56 in scripture in the 1800s Pope Leo XIII uh started the the initiative to have 17:02 a Biblical commission that would clarify for Catholics what how they should interpret scripture and this is how we 17:09 work as Catholics we get we get our interpretation of scripture from the church"
As I recall Trent session IV, what obliges is the sense that the Church "tenuit atque tenet" and the Vatican Council confirmed this as an obligatory rule, however without making the Vulgate the "gold standard" as one could interpret Trent Session IV as doing.
So, "one can say that 'day' means an extended period of time" does not equate to a position, since it is not prescribing "one should" etc. But even if it did, even if one could pretend 1909 had somehow cancelled all earlier statements, notably in the liturgy (like Christmas Day, the Midnight Mass), that would according to the wording of both Trent and Vatican Councils not be obliging against the previous position.
As it is, 1909 is a dispensation, which for the science minded has lost its then given object (long day-periods ending at Adam's creation and beginning of Biblical chronology).
The ones that this day faithfully do apply this dispensation, that's not FSSPX, that's the Watchtower Society.
17:52 I think the following passages from Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 merit a highlight:
Revelation
As no man witnessed the creation and formation of the universe, all human speculations concerning this subject present only conjectures and hypotheses. In this field we obtain certain knowledge only by Divine revelation. Whether God granted this revelation by way of language, or by vision, or by another more intellectual process, we do not know; all of these methods are possible, and as such they may enter into the exegesis of Genesis 1. Again, though very plausible reasons may be advanced for the thesis that God granted such a revelation to the first man, Adam, they are not absolutely convincing; the full instruction as to the origin of the world may have been given at a later period, perhaps only to the inspired writer of the Hexaemeron. If the revelation in question was granted at an earlier time, perhaps immediately after man's creation, its substance may have been preserved by the aid of a special providence among the ancestors of the Hebrews. While the primitive doctrine degenerated among the races into their respective cosmogonies, modified by their various natural surroundings, one race may have kept alive the spark of Divine truth as it had been received from God in the cradle of humanity. Or, if such a purity of doctrine among the Hebrew ancestors appears to be incompatible with the vagaries of other Semitic cosmogonies, it may be assumed that God partially or wholly repeated His primitive revelation, during the time of the Patriarchs, for instance, or of Moses. At any rate, the attitude of Christian tradition towards the Hexaemeron implies its revealed character; hence, whatever theories may be held as to its transmission, its ultimate source is Divine revelation.
And:
(b) The Hexaemeron Prior to the Geological Strata
In order to avoid any opposition between the Hexaemeron and the data of geology, it has been attempted to place the geological formations after the six days of creation. A. González* de Sala (1650), I. Woodward (1659), I. Scheuchzer (1731), and others expressed the opinion that our present geological strata, fossils, etc. are due to the waters of the Deluge. G. Leibniz, A. L. Moro (1740), and others expressed their belief that the influence of fire and heat had been at least partial causes of the present conformation of the earth's crust and surface. There was a great diversity of opinion as to the real length of time covered by the six days: G. Wiston (1696) maintained that before the rotation of the earth around its axis a day lasted a year; G. L. Buffon (1749) required a hundred thousand years for the Hexaemeron; while I. E. Silberschlag (1780) is content with six natural days. Among more recent writers the following are Diluvialists: C. F. Keil ("Biblischer Commentar", Leipzig, 1866), P. Laurent ("Etudes géologiques", Paris, 1863), A. Sorignet ("La Cosmogonie de la Bible", etc., Paris, 1854), V. M. Gatti ("Institutiones apologetico-polemicæ", 1867), I.E. Veith ("Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt", Vienna, 1865), A. Bosizio ("Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie", Mainz, 1865; "Die Geologie und die Sündfluth", Mainz, 1877), A. Trisel ("Sündfluth oder Gletscher?" Munich, 1894, and "Das biblische Sechstagewerk", Ratisbon, 1894), G. I. Burg ("Biblische Chronologie", Trier, 1894). But this theory does not fully agree with the Biblical account of the Flood, nor does it satisfy the geologists.
Johann Emanuel Veith, cited in the above passage was a Redemptorist and physician and friend of Saint Clement Mary Hofbauer (who was canonised in 1909, same year as the decision you quote, and Pope St. Pius X is a higher authority than Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux.
§§ Father Robinson:
"so these these decrees uh 20:22 from 1909 were extremely important in giving us the proper Catholic balance and it is the church doing her job um to 20:29 to guide us and in how we're to understand scripture so we don't have to 20:35 have these arguments about about what scripture means"
Catholic Encyclopedia:
"(5) In the denomination and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis the word yôm (day) can be taken either in its proper sense, as a natural day, or in an improper sense, for a period of time, and discussion on this point among exegetes is legitimate."
So, is discussion legitimate, or what we want to avoid by having these decrees? Even if it were what we wanted to avoid, what if the decree itself encourages discussion?
Now, the decree actually does state "inter exegetas" ... what about laymen? Well, the catechism of Pope St. Pius X is at least Young Earth compatible, and especially as to the time after Adam was created. The creation days as such were not mentioned. It was from 1905, and in the previous decade, Catholics had published defenses of:
- strict Young Earth
- Day Age
- Gap Theory
So, presumably, laymen were free to believe all three of these, but of these only strict Young Earth retains any scientific credibility.
22:25 Excellent point.
As long as the science is not contrary to the faith.
Day Age and Gap Theory are contrary to the faith in Christ coming to witness to the truth, but this can have fallen under the radar, so there is a canonical dispensation, specifically for Day Age.
However, 1909 does not state anything about long ages between Adam and Abraham, huge gaps in genealogies, chapters 5 and 11 are by definition not within the scope of the questions, namely the "first three chapters" ... and going from 3000 years between Adam and Abraham to 750 000 years clearly is against the faith:
- because of the historicity of Genesis 3, which unlike the Hexaemeron no one says was revealed as prophecy
- because of the huge amount of time to forget about the promised redeemer
- because the conditions of most of that time, unlike on a Young Earth Creationist view where Palaeolithic conditions are much more rare, though the parts misdated to 40 000, 20 000, 15 000 years ago obviously existed (I'd say between Flood and death of Noah), and anthropologists saying that Palaeolithic conditions imply family planning of typically immoral ways, if not always, at least in exceptional difficulties
- because the traces from those times, if the Genesis 9 through 11 text is not supposed to be a trace through tradition, and if the decades or centuries of millennia are accepted, will tend to imply mankind during those days had an incompatible religion (same traces seen as mainly from 350 years will rather be interpreted as temporary dissipations, perhaps without religious significance.
Putting Adam at 7000 or 10 000 years ago, but lots of human skeleta from way earlier is also against the faith:
- one interpretation of it would be polygenism, condemned
- if one stated the men from "20 000 years ago" were not real men, it would be at least against the morals, as distorting and pushing the goal posts for rational human behaviour, which can spill over into how fellow men are treated, can lead to slave hunting, for instance the slave hunting known as psychiatry, condemnable
- and whatever one thought of human skeleta from "20 000 years ago" it would be hasardous to state that Adam was ancestor of all men now alive, and impossible to state he was the sole ancestor living at that time.
Now, if putting Adam early or late in the Old Earth scenario for human remains as they now are dated is forbidden, putting him somewhere in between is not solving the problem, it is combining both problems.
If putting him late, early or in the middle of that scenario is impossible, this means the scenario is not compatible with the faith, howeversomuch it may seem so before you consider where to put Adam in it.
Plus, any idea of Adam being born to biological human creatures that are not the image of God but product of evolution is utmost evil, unless it's idiotic, since developing human language by evolution is impossible, and having Adam grow up among creatures without language would make him a feral child.
22:55 Let's note.
There is a difference between decree obliging, and decree permitting. How do we know this? Because Honorius made a decree permitting to believe Monotheletism. Leo II made with a Council a decree forbidding Monotheletism.
The permission to believe Day Age cannot be a dogma, because it is a permission.
It may not be applicable, as meant back then, today, a) because it's not a dogma, hence not eternal or all times henceforth; but also b) because the one motivator to use Day Age is to accomodate a science which back then you thought was claiming an inch, but now it's more like claiming an ell. I use the term science loosely. Geological claims that the earth is 100 000 to 4 500 000 000 years old are not science as Ohm's law or the Archimedes principle (which by the way can be used to calculate loaded weight of the ark, if you presume the waterline was 15 cubits up, as a verse in Genesis 7 seems to indicate) are science. Or if you tried to make enunciations about my character based on my having Jupiter in Virgo in my birthchart, that's not science either. It's at best a good mnemonic for what you find on other grounds, and at worst a superstition. That's the spectrum where I put claims about deep time, except astrologers seem slightly less distorted than Deep Time geologists. To examplify what I mean by distorted: a Geologist I debated (who wouldn't give his name so his faculty couldn't punish him for debating a Creationist, it was the handle Howard F) answered my challenge about Pelykosaurs below Dinosaurs.
Me: I was not asking on pelycosaurs stratigraphically below (I guess you meant) dinosaurs. I was asking about the LOCALLY below. What exact place on earth?
He: I worked in Kansas for a long time where Pelycosaurs are found in the east in the Pennsylvanian, and Dinos are in the west in the Cretaceous. Although there are many miles in between, the layers with the Pelycosaurs dip to the west and are a few thousand feet below the Cretaceous rocks with Dinos
Me: That can be arranged by my scenario. Both layers are from flood, they are not strictly coextensive and they covered different biotopes.
This is an excerpt from a dialogue with lots longer lines each, it's on "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere" on the post "Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further" from Tuesday, May 12, 2015.
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 6:38 AM Tuesday, May 12, 2015
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/05/same-debate-uncensored-one-step-further.html
24:46 No, it doesn't. A freedom to discuss is a non-decision.
26:45 The general principles in that manual are beyond reproach.
He corrected me on what Divine Inspiration really is, not just a negative protection from error, as I had thought, as with the magisterium, but extending to all matters of fact, but an actual divine initiative for each sentence. While Saints Moses and Luke certainly did enjoy freedom of will and of reason while doing their research for Genesis / 3rd Gospel, even so each sentence was carried by a divine decision, making their human ones providentially and by efficient grace match what God wanted to communicate.
It's just when it came to extending ages before Adam, non-global Flood, and possibility of gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy that one can have major issues with his solutions.
"[L']étude analytique de l'hébreu atablist qu'il n'est pas un idiome primitif. Son vocabulaire renferme des mots composés, et sa grammaire est remplie de formes qui ont été constituées à l'aide de débris de termes anciens, rongés par le temps et soudés entre eux dans la nuit des âges. Les temps des verbes, par exemple, sont composés comme les nôtres, d'un radical et de pronoms qui modifient le sens du radical, etc. Or, a) d'après le système philologique qui paraît le plus vraisemblable, les langues, dans leur premier état, et la langue primitive, par conséquent, ont dû être monosyllabiques, ..."
(quote from p. 618 of Tome premier Introduction générale — Pentateuque of his Manuel biblique.)
Well, today I don't find linguists upholding that any language as far as it can be followed back ever had a first state, and also none saying the first language had to have a grammar reminiscent of Chinese.
27:55 I do trust Father Vigouroux on general principles like what does Divine Inspiration mean.
On somewhat less general principles, I trust him less. "Moses' view of the world means the Table of Nations must be limited to the then known nations" ... no, it doesn't. Nathanael Jeanson has pointed out that several items, not least the Dodanim, are unmatched.
Then he has three bad solutions overall, and one of these is authorised in a judgement where he is secretary of the tribunal. Only one of them. Pure Day Age.
A Flood limited to where men were living? No. A series of unidentified gaps in Genesis 11 genealogy? No.
And the one he was allowed to authorise, by itself, doesn't correspond to a reasonable scientific object any more.
28:45, sth "Scholars hold that matter was produced at a very distant time"
He doesn't show any comprehension of or independent assessment of their arguments, he thinks he should just get along with what "scholars say" ...
30:01 I agree God could not have needed an entire day, but still less did He need an epoch. God could very well have used entire six days, for His purpose of among other things giving an example.
30:20 Concordism is a word employed in different ways. The specific concordism of Day Age seems to have been exploded from the scientific side in 1920, when Eugène Mangenot writes his "Hexaëmeron" article in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.
THEN some will go around and call Creation Science "Concordism" which is not how it is historically used, and then conclude from that, that Creation Science is exploded.
31:00 Yes, it takes the Genesis 1 account on some way literally. But it fails to take into account Mark 10:6, Luke 17:50,51. It has also been given up as a means of looking at Deep Time views on science. Even the Watchtower Society who have Fulcran Vigouroux' view need to fudge it a bit by saying "oh, the creation days actually overlap a bit" ... for instance, fossil whales are appearing in "layers" classified as Miocene or possibly Eocene or sth ... that's supposedly hundreds of millions of years after Permian "layers" already include Land Creatures, like Dimetrodon. That would be a huge overlap of day five (when the whales appeared) and day six (when dimetrodon appeared).
Confer actual layering of fossils. In drill holes, you usually find marine biota and very typically several layers. But there would have been several layers of life in the marine areas when they were buried by mud in the Flood.
In fossil beds, you usually find one layer of fossils, very typically land biota, and this also makes sense if the Flood struck areas where one level of animals were grasing or chasing each other.
31:41 While God is Himself outside time, He does things which are not outside time, like infusing grace when I got baptised at a specific date. This means that the holy author's view of how long God's action was happening should be taken seriously. If Fulcran Vigouroux believed an Old Earth scenario was compatible with taking the days as longer epochs and these strictly serially, I hope to see him in heaven if I get there, but the Old Earth scenarios presented these days, with the scientists he trusted moving on beyond only the certainties he had heard of, that possibility dissipates.
32:16 I would say, on each of the days, God created things instantaneously, in a fully formed state (whether he first formed them embryonically in the one moment or not, St. Thomas holds he did), and the rest of the hours, the angels were allowed to examine minutely what God had in fact created. On Day Four, some angels were delegated to move certain celestial bodies, perhaps even all of them, and they spent day four playing around with what would be their tools up to now.
Two angels were spending some hours on day six before Adam was created getting acquainted with a serpent and a donkey. Satan spoke through a serpent, and a good angel spoke through a donkey.
32:26 Creating a universe unformed and have it develop is within God's prerogatives, but not consistent with God's consistency. When God in the Flesh made miracles that resembled creation acts, He made them instantaneously.
32:41 Before I was a Christian, I used to believe the theory stars had developed over a long period of time. As a Creationist, when I examine the evidence for that theory, it's on loose sand.
24:42 When it comes to scientific proofs against a steady state eternal universe, my favourite has nothing to do with Deep Time dating methods.
Rev. Bryan Houghton took it over from Dom Stanley Jaki. If the universe were eternal, the Hydrogen would be depleted.
There is no known process which allows Hydrogen to form. There are known processes (deduced at a distance, but still), in stars, that deplete Hydrogen. Two atoms of Hydrogen fuse to one atom of the isotope Deuterium (not sure where the extra electron comes in from, Neutrons are supposed to be Proton+Electron), also known as "heavy Hydrogen" and two atoms of Deuterium combine to one atom of Helium. This double process is one way, irreversible. Hence, if the universe were infinitely old, all Hydrogen, or at least all Hydrogen available for stars, would be already depleted infinitely long ago.
35:40 The question is, actually, double.
A) Was Hubble observing "galaxies, like our own Milky Way" or was he observing something else? If Geocentrism is true, and it hasn't been proven false, lots of moot assumptions are involved in that conclusion.
B) Why project the process back to when the matter was "concentrated in the relatively narrow space" as if that were necessarily the beginning God had chosen from it? Why was Pius XII not alert to this actually atheistic assumption?
36:21 "new comfort" ... I find more new confort in Creation Science. If Ken Ham is a Protestant (by the way staying a bit aloof from the Calvinist / Arminian debate, where as you may know the Calvinists are not just very un-Catholic, but also more toxically anti-Catholic than Arminians, unless they are Hislop believers) ... Edwin Hubble was an Agnostic.
"If if they think that the science supports that they're 37:22 they're free to to hold on to that"
Are we free to support that? I was somewhat less interested in stating Old Earth as the "science" side now stands tends to heresy, until I was told time and again both sides were free to believe, explicitly, but implicitly "however, Young Earth Creationists are less free to argue" ...
To the defense of Pius XII, since I have at times considered his acceptance of Deep Time in 1951 as apostasy, depriving him of papacy ipso facto, he was probably not aware of what this would do to the age of mankind, which is theologically vastly more important. He may still have held opinions on that one very close to those of Vigouroux or Guibert.
"when I was younger well you know look at what the scientists are doing they're planting these fake dinosaur bones to 37:52 make us think that the Earth is millions of years old"
That might be the position of Allie Beth Stuckey, who is a generally conservative commenter (deeply into pro-life, God bless her and her family!) but it is definitely not the position of Ken Ham or of any Young Earth Creationist I have been reading.
To the credit of those stating things like that, the Nebraska man and the Piltdown man actually were frauds.
To their discredit, they seem to believe a dinosaur bone proves the earth very old, which it doesn't (unless you take its age in Biblical chronology as very old).
"yeah I mean it has to to be a conspiracy on a very vast scale um I 38:17 remember growing up and and coming in contact with some geocentric traditional catholic geocentric and they were they 38:23 were telling me basically that Nasa uses geocentric calculation but they just don't tell anybody they they they keep 38:30 it all hush hush why because if people found out that geocentrism was true you 38:36 know then that would undermine their atheistic plot against against the church"
Whatever you take about the plot, there seems to be some contexts in which they actually do use geocentric calculations. It's not necessarily a "vast conspiracy" if they think "this really doesn't matter, it's the most convenient" and then "wait, we can't tell this very openly, otherwise they would figure we believed Geocentrism is true, which we don't ..."
Why do I get a feeling you have entered into a plot of painting Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism as conspiracy theories?
Because that plot certainly exists in recent decades, that plot certainly has some support from some Christians, like the Patriarchate of Moscow, and FSSPX has priories where they are more in power, like definitely in St. Petersburg.
Obviously, it could be a coincidence that both of you were living around very conspiracy minded Young Earth Creationists and very conspiracy minded Geocentrics, I believe certain conspiracies do exist, but on another level than the fairly crude one you depict.
While it has nothing to do with the subject really, and while I am more like agnostic about the conspiracy, if such, faking the Moon landing would not have taken all of the NASA employees having been in on the plot, it would have sufficed with 20 odd people being so ... very vast conspiracies aren't necessary.
38:53 Once you take into account very distant stars, which are supposedly known to be very distant through Geocentrism, where (locally in the universe) do you place heaven?
The question might seem non-sensical to an Evangelical who can say "it's another dimension" or "it's purely spiritual" (to the point where Jesus' no longer has any flesh and blood to miraculously make present elsewhere, nor any body born of the virgin, that point of apostasy does exist), but to a Catholic it shouldn't.
Jesus and Mary have bodies, there is some place where these bodies in their own dimensions are surrounded by three-dimensional space, and traditionally we hold that to be above the stars, not in a kind of space ship in the middle of them.
Plus, obviously, the Distant Starlight problem posed for Young Earth Creationism.
Plus the neglect of Prima Via in I P, Q 2, A 3 and a parallel passage or two in Contra Gentes, and yes, Riccioli understood that one as about Geocentrism with God as mover of heaven-as-a-whole.
"Platte City August 30th [40:35] 2011 a recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X [40:40] promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible"
This may have come about as a result of me being a then known faithful of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, and since previously known to embrace Geocentrism (since 2001) and also known to have been previously in contact with SSPX (since 1993).
Especially, if someone at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet had the stupidity to confide me to observation by psychiatrists, their overall incompetence and readiness to find infantilising explanations may have given them, who didn't consult with me about it, the position that my position was a result of the SSPX taking advantage of me.
This is simply untrue, but that kind of infantilising statements about me is apt to somehow backfire on those suspected of having taken advantage of my (also not true) gullibility.
41:28 Did the communication actually say "Divino Afflatu Spiritu"?
Pius XII wrote sth which is called Divino Afflante Spiritu. Where your confrères in Platte City too incompetent in Latin to recall the correct title?
3. The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says,[5] speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - [6] the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,"[7] that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."[8] Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if "copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible," or, "if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous." Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."[9]
It is not the least clear how Pius XII, if guarding the faith, could speak of:
// which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," //
In French:
// principe qu'il " sera permis d'appliquer aux sciences du même genre et notamment à l'histoire //
[Leonis XIII acta XIII, p. 355; Ench. Bibl. n. 106; supra, p. 22.]
It so happens that the words actually do quote, and actually even misquote Pope Leo XIII. Here are his actual words, Providentissimus Deus:
The principles here laid down will apply cognate sciences, and especially to History.
Note the plural, please!
And the last OF the principleS previous to this is:
The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for [refutation]
It so happens, the word "refutation" though quite clear from the Latin, is not there in the English translation on the Vatican.
42:01 It is a curious fact, that, while everyone seems to think Leo XIII had Heliocentrism in mind, he never even once mentioned it.
Perhaps he found it safest to personally remain Geocentric, while not knowing how to defend it, while giving indirectly a kind of lease for Heliocentrism, to people thinking they were obeying him.
For instance, "sunrise" is not given as an example of figurative language or phenomenal language in Providentissimus Deus, even if that's what everyone seems to think it is about.
42:15 "but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory"
Not what I found. OK, no one was telling me I was a heretic, there were hints I was disobedient, but I was definitely marginalised as content creator, and therefore killed as breadwinner, while I was in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.
The real meaning seems to be "may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory, as long as it is not based on the Bible or defended by the Bible so as to suggest the Bible is in and of itself obliging to it ..." as if either Providentissimus Deus or Divino Afflante Spiritu were some kind of magisterial definitions that the Bible was NOT obliging to some positions on cosmic theories or history.
42:45 "They may be selling out science, but that's a discussion for another time"
Geocentrics or Heliocentrics?
Science as the Atheist idol, or scienceS, like certain disciplines, of which the queen is Theology?
I would say, if you mean accurate observation and logic deductions from them, as pertain to astronomy and certain aspects even of earth sciences (Coriolis and Eötvös effects and perhaps one more), and a logic open to God as acting in His creation, and to His making the angels act in His creation, it is actually the Heliocentric who is selling out that kind of a legitimate science.
43:38 Pope Michael I was certainly personally Geocentric, which was the first thing I appreciated about him, even while Palmarian, back in 2002 ... both Conclavism and Palmarianism are Young Earth Creationist.
While I was a parishioner at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, I did not in any way try to canonically bind anyone to Geocentrism, I was arguing it.
And I was meeting a stonewall from a whole parish, due to this. "Sure, you are free to hold it" ... at the price of remaining a pauper another decade of my life, obviously.
45:36 Did Bp. Tissier de Mallerais mention what exact manual Abp Lefebvre was using in Mortain?
45:46 Vigouroux was not open to vastly augmenting the span of mankind after Adam's creation.
As for Gigot, I'm not sure you can call him a Classic.
GIGOT, FRANCIS ERNEST (on Encyclopedia.com) states:
The ecclesiastical spirit of the time was not favorable to the scholarship that Gigot represented, but his method and approach to scriptural study were amply vindicated two decades after his death by the divino afflante spiritu of Pius XII.
Now, the entry certainly continues:
Once widely used manuals were Gigot's General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures (New York 1900) and Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament (2 v. 1903–06).
It does not state when they were widely used, nor whether they were most widely used in the US or the French speaking parts.
47:14 Ludwig Ott was weighing in only when the Magisterium had become porose on this matter:
Grundriss der Katholischen Dogmatik. Verlag Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1. Auflage 1952, 3. veränd. Auflage 1957, 10. Auflage 1981 (Ausgabe letzter Hand), ISBN 3-451-13541-8.
English edition 1955, German original in 1952.
After Humani Generis. After the 1951 allocution.
Also after Mgr Lefebvre had been teaching in Mortain. Meaning, he is far less likely than Vigouroux to have influenced him or his teaching.
47:59 "Merely a literary clothing."
Ott is here repeating a novum first formulated by Eugène Mangenot, SJ, in 1920.
Prior to 1920, every work cited by Mangenot fell into three definitely much more literalist categories, namely Literalism as per Literalism, Gap Theory (which takes a certain daring reading of Genesis 1:2), Day-Age (which does the same with "first day" and so on). None prior to 1920, among Catholics, had made this kind of claim, that Ott is repeating.
Note, this was not per se said by anyone higher up, it was a position of manuals so to speak in the shadow of far sketchier liberties at the papal level.
48:11 "the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time"
There is in fact no such thing as pre-scientific. There may be things that are not correct, and were widely held before a contrary discovery, that does not amount to prescientific.
Ott is using a very biassed and tendentious language.
"with regards to the opinions of the fathers uh father a says 48:22 the church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions but limits itself to rejecting errors 48:29 which endanger Faith further in these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the fathers since they 48:36 are not here acting as Witnesses of the faith but merely as private 48:41 scientists"
Radical Modernist Ott, then!
First, is there any such thing as "magisterial scientist"?
Second, when St. Augustine spent several books (11 to 17 or 12 to 16 or sth) of City of God specifically defending trait after trait of Young Earth Creationism, including the overall timeline after Adam's creation (with leeway between LXX and Hebrew readings), as precisely pertaining to the faith, as precisely given by Holy Scripture, it would certainly surprise him to hear (have surprised him) what Ott had to say about his speaking as a private scientist.
Third, can magisterial theologians at one and the same time pretend to step out of science as theologians and then as having authority in theology pretend to being heard in science? "Magisterial scientists don't exist, but I'm magisterial as theologian, so let's take my opinion of science as magisterial science anyway!" Er, no, that's not how logic works.
53:09 As a Young Earth Creationist, the Darwinian mechanism can produce reproductive barriers, if there are such between the 17 species of hedgehog.
There was one couple of hedgehogs on the Ark. Not 17.
That said, back in the days of Vigouroux, this tended to be denied by opponents of Darwinism, which led to assumptions about a less than global Flood, which in turn led to assuming fossils needed to be from far older periods than the Flood.
Since the hedgehogs are neither a single species nor a single genus today, but a subfamily, one can assume family is a very typical level of the Biblical kind.
There was certainly enough space on the Ark as described in the Bible to take one pair of animals from every family. Note, this doesn't work quite the same way for dinosaurs ... YEC have considered there were 55 kinds of them.
53:34 "I don't think that's what happened"
I would go further. Some who did think that was what happened, and saw what kind of cruelty to "child Adam" this would have involved, probably in God's eyes were the equivalent of certain characters in Romans 1.
And God sent them over to their bad passions, or the worst of them.
Now that the denial of an individual Adam is more rampant, another bad passion is so too, former bp. McCarrick is older than Fr. Martin.
When Pius XII wrote Humani Generis, he used language indicative of wanting some kind of debate, but the document was instead used not totally unlike how you are using Providentissimus Deus as "stating" the Bible doesn't oblige to Geocentrism or 1909 as "stating" the Bible cannot legitimately be interpreted as excluding Deep Time.
Meanwhile, you are in agreement with William Lane Craig, who on his part poses Adam (yes, he believes an individual literal such) in 750 000 years ago, as this was before Neanderthals and Homo sapiens diverged, he agrees (correctly) that both are fully human, both fully Adamite.
Now, if you go back to Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, the idea of mankind having even 75 000 years, a tenth of what WLC proposed, was the equivalent of an atheist exaggeration, an attack on the Bible.
54:54 None of the documents cited on the highest level says in so many words "this is not a matter of faith" ...
Once you agree on "this is not a matter of faith" the Young Earth Creationist can easily be handicapped, since appealing to Biblical history as Biblical history is suddenly forbidden.
Why, because the Bible is precisely of faith.
58:03 For exclusion of WLC's long ages between Adam and Moses, see Luke 3 and City of God.
For exclusion of Fr. Vigouroux' long ages before Adam, see Mark 10:6, Luke 17:50,51, and all Church Fathers who exposed Genesis 1 in the first place.
Not able to find is like Arius pretending one could not find "consubstantial" in the Bible. Or even a bit less ingenious.
59:12 I had to look up how the Kolbe Center cited Pius XII. Here is one interesting passage:
In Humani Generis On Evolution, theologian and physicist Fr. Victor Warkulwiz demonstrates that a careful reading of the encyclical upholds the constant teaching of the Church that all of Genesis, from beginning to end, is true history; and that every word in the Bible is true, whether it speaks of faith or morals, history, natural science or anything else. In reality, as Fr. Warkulwiz explains, the only permission that Pope Pius XII gave in regard to human evolution was for Catholic scholars to examine the evidence for and against the evolutionary hypothesis, within the parameters laid down by the Deposit of Faith. Thus, Humani generis, rightly interpreted, leaves the entire burden of proof where it is has always been—on anyone who challenges the literal historical truth of the sacred history of Genesis in regard to the origins of man and the universe.
Kolbe Report 4/27/24
April 27, 2024, by Hugh Owen
https://kolbecenter.org/kolbe-report-4-27-24/
1:00:43 Resuming on case:
- if the Fathers did not consider Geocentrism or Young Earth Creationism as of the faith, we are not obliged to believe these things
- if Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism were held by some fathers but opposed by others, we are not obliged to believe these things
THE FACTS ARE:
- the Fathers at least held Young Earth Creationism, like rejecting Egyptian mythological timelines, as of the faith
- this is not due to mistrust in mythology as mythology, Justin Martyr and St. Augustin were fine with us believing that Romulus or Hercules lived
- and no father speaking on the subject held any other opinion than Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism.
David Palm tried to find an example for "Geocentrism Debunked" and he found exactly one father who in the discoveries of the philosophers enumerated, among other things, one of them had discovered that "Earth turns around the Sun" — but in order to make out that this is a real counterexample, he would have to prove that the very obscure Church Father (whom he probably found only thanks to internet, and would previously have needed a very good expert in Migne to find) actually meant this list with approval rather than somewhat tongue in cheek.
So, the principles mentioned do not translate as liberty for this specific case. Don't take my word for it, and also don't ask me "what do you know?" but if you think there is a counterexample, find it.
Opinion of St. Thomas:
"in another place St Thomas aquinus says most admirably when 1:00:48 philosophers are agreed upon a point and it is not contrary to our faith it is safer in my opinion neither to lay down 1:00:55 such a point as a dogma of Faith even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers nor to reject it as against 1:01:02 Faith lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our 1:01:08 faith"
Note, first, he states it is his opinion.
But note, second, when he thinks this prudence applies. When philosophers are agreed.
When St. Thomas stated this, he meant all philosophers known and studied in his time and extending into the future, he did not mean the narrow selection of contemporaries.
In this perspective it's a fairly simple fact that not all philosophers agree the earth is eternal and so not all philosophers agree the earth is very old.
Many are in fact Geocentric, surprisingly this is the case with Epicure and Lucrece.
Application by Fr. Robinson:
"so in these questions Heliocentrism~Geocentrism Old Earth 1:01:15 ~new Young Earth what have you he says The Prudent thing is is not to to say 1:01:21 this is for the faith or this is against the faith"
Again, does not follow from the principle invoked by the type of fact invoked.
If you want to take this as about "contemporary science" you are forgetting that to St. Thomas Aquinas, that was not a concept. Recent discoveries were probably a marginal, but certainly still concept. But that they taken together make contemporary science superior to the ancients, no, that was not a concept.
Nor do they. Schools of philosophy and science do not only shift because of bona fide discoveries, like Harvey discovering the blood circulation, or like (if you count geography and archaeology as sciences rather than "historia" in the Greek sense) Klaus Schmidt discovering Göbekli Tepe (which I hold to be Babel) or Columbus among Europeans discovering the Americas.
They also shift because of fashion and a certain overdone respect for professional scientists can cement these. I am very dissatisfied with Ott for considering that in "scientific questions" the Church Fathers were "laymen" ... the fact is, he was a German, and in Prussia with successor states, non-academics are in relation to non-theological disciplines very freely termed "Laien" = laymen. It's like these guys who didn't believe Catholic clergy any more were looking for some kind of Ersatz-clergy, which they found in their academics.
1:01:57 So, Science and Faith, non-overlapping magisteria.
Is Kingship of Christ over souls and kingship of men over bodies also non-overlapping magisteria?
Well, no. Mgr Lefebvre, rightly, opposed, whether it was the actual words of the "council" or just a certain reception of it that denied "mixed matters" ...
I can't say why we should absolutely affirm mixed matters in the matter of rule, where it means complexity and potential bloody conflict, but equally absolutely deny mixed matters in the matter of speculation over truth, where it will most quickly get one involved in debate, rather than war. Not that debates are lacking on the other side too, but there was such a thing as fighting Azaña ... or British misrule.
1:02:38 I actually would say that Fr. Robinson is overinterpreting Leo XIII, and already Pius XII was on top of that misinterpreting him.
It's overinterpreting to state that a certain matter is defined as not falling under the faith, since Leo XIII didn't mention any such.
It's a canonist's misinterpretation of him when Leo says A, B, C, D, E, F ... and same principleS apply ... to history and Pius concludes as a fair quote C, and same principle applieS ... to history.
He very probably concluded "if each of A, B etc applies to history, so does C" when Leo very probably meant the list to apply only mutatis mutandis. And C by the nature of the case cannot apply to history.
The wording he used for what the Bible didn't intend to teach on is most apt for things like subatomic theory, in which it is doubtful whether we even have any science either. History by the nature of the case falls under the senses of some human observer.
1:03:21 Explicitly stated they had freedom ... in words implying the freedom extended to Biblically argue for discontinuing it.
No censures ... in a time when an Old Earth Creationist could still comfortably hold that Adam and all men overall lived within the last 10 000 years.
1:04:14 "Yeah, then we have to believe it"
How about analysing Josue 10:12, and how about reassessing:
"he ordered Sun and Moon to change their apparent movements, and they did"
since, if the movements of Sun and Moon are just apparent, why would they be the ones to receive the order?
It would be the sole case in all of the Bible in which the words of a miracle worker is adressed to sth other than what needs to physically change.
In John 2, Christ is giving an order to the servants, but that order comes before the miracle. He says a word silently in His Sacred Heart.
But when He drove out demons, He spoke loudly, so one could conclude that they existed.
Josue could also have spoken silently in his heart, if God hadn't wanted us to conclude that it was Sun and Moon that stopped.
And for that matter, he gave the impression, Sun and Moon could hear orders, like being angelic or being moved by angels.
1:05:08 I would agree that the main dogmas are by oral tradition, but lots of detail would have been forgotten without the explicit word of Scripture.
The Council of Trent profusely quotes Scripture.
Note, Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are not yet forgotten, so they could perfectly well be within the category of a tradition from Jesus, which right now needs defense by Scripture.
It would not be correct to say that the individual Catholic always knows what the Bible means before he reads it.
1:05:37 "I know what I believe, let's see how Scripture confirms"
Fair enough when it comes to the Eucharist or rejecting Double Predestination.
Mere symbolism and God directly predestining to damnation are positions condemned by the Church, which cannot be found in Scripture.
These canons from Trent are not the kind of language the Church (presuming it was on all three occasions her) used in Providentissimus Deus, 1909 and Humani Generis. The language there used was freedom of discussion, and obviously that freedom was not restricted to discussing only scientific evidence presuming the Bible was neutral. She was not defined to be so.
Since Providentissimus Deus in the passage quoted in Divino Afflante Spiritu quotes St. Augustine, I'll be back tomorrow after verifying in the library. De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII is not available online for free, that I know, not even in Latin.
Possibly to be continued, this
Some Counterpoint to Fr. Robinson:
The Truth About Creation: What You Need to Know w/ Hugh Owen
Radio Immaculata | 9 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMiS1qlbVc
what the church 8:30 always taught and every father and doctor of the church believed and taught 8:37 that when this world came forth from God in its Perfection St Adam and St Eve 8:45 were placed as the king and queen of a perfectly beautiful harmonious complete 8:51 universe and it was only the original sin that brought not only human death 8:57 but deformity disease and every kind of disorder into this 9:03 world now another thing that many of our young people are told is that the 9:09 fathers and the doctors did not know anything about Evolution so they couldn't really have interacted with 9:15 those ideas but that also is completely false the world of the fathers was full 9:21 of evolution Anaximander the Greek philosopher was teaching that we evolved 9:27 from fish five 100 years before the birth of Christ
No comments:
Post a Comment