Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Radio Immaculata

Showing posts with label Radio Immaculata. Show all posts

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man)

"before the 0:19 scientific discoveries of the late 19th century most adherents of Catholicism and protestantism believed that the 0:25 earth and the universe were 6,000 years old based on chronology derived from the Bible 0:30 however after the discovery of the radioactive behavior of atoms developments in the study of geology and 0:37 accurate measurements of star distances Catholic Scholars abandoned the idea that the Earth was 6,000 years old 0:44 fundamentalist Protestants however clung to this idea that this was a teaching of the Bible and seek to support their 0:50 thesis by scientific evidence by which they tried to explain away these discoveries"

OK, and Luther excommunicated Pope Leo X over introducing Indulgences? In 1522, Luther added another excommunication, because Rome had recently introduced the Sacrifice of the Mass?

No, that is a totally false history, and what you said in the opening paragraph is also a totally false history.

1) You misconstrue the latitude of how old and young the Biblical chronology can go. Catholicism has three distinct viewpoints on the choice of texts.
- a) Trent Session IV endorses the Vulgate, which is indeed Ussher compatible. Haydock comments on the Douay Rheims, translated from the Vulgate, footnote chapters on what year Anno Mundi and Anno Domini, based on Ussher.
- b) The Roman Martyrology for Christmas day involves, since it was only Usuardus, not yet obliging for all of the Latin rite, a quote from Historia scholastica. 1 BC, when Christ is born, coincides with 5199 AM. Since 1490's, two modifications have been made on the quote, in the Roman Martyrology.
- c) Nicaea II (or Constantinople IV) in some comment mentioned that Jesus was born 5500 AM. That's the Chronology of Syncellus.
2) You totally omit that "distant starlight problem" was becoming a thing way later than the shift you pretend to describe.
3) You paint Fundamentalist Protestants as the conservative party. On this issue, of course. They are now divided in three branches, all admitting Adam was created around 4000 BC, but divided on the Universe.
- a) Universe at the same time as Adam (within one week, or within 168 hours). Young Earth Creationism.
- b) Universe created way earlier, and the six days begin after a huge disaster leaving the Earth Tohu wa Bohu. Gap Theory.
- c) Universe created way earlier, over six long periods of time. Day Age.
These same theories were being defended by Catholic publications as late as 1896, with no latitude for less literal readings (corresponding to Framework Theory, the Liberal Protestant view), and with some more latitude for which Biblical chronology, Ussher, Syncellus, or the Martyrology in between. Fulcran Vigouroux had some latitude in principle, but never explored it in practise, for extending the timespan between Adam and Abraham, most likely if so within the Genesis 11 genealogy. BUT concretely, in 1880 or so, he stated that there was no need for it. For human history, he stuck to Biblical chronology. He gave no authorisation to depart from that position of Young Earth Creationism in 1909.

Meanwhile, among Protestants of the time, nearly no one was Young Earth Creationist. They were then divided between Gap Theory and Day Age, and the exceptions were Roman Catholics and 7th Day Adventists. While the English speaking Catholic world was clearly less productive in manuals promoting Young Earth Creationism after Lyell, it had the Haydock Comment which was explicitly Young Earth Creationist. When Scofield came to imitate the concept of Haydock (consciously or not), he on the other hand promoted Old Earth Creationism.

When Catechisms were written from the time of that by Pope St. Pius IX to some in the 1950's and 60's, they were clearly compatible with Young Earth Creationism. "Katolsk Troslära" is a Swedish translation from a German one of the 60's, just after Vatican II, or during it (it shows in the artwork). It was the one I used in converting for a Polish priest ordained in 1958, when I was received. It was as compatible with Young Earth Creationism as that of Pius X. The Baltimore Catechism was issued in 1885 and held to Biblical chronology from Adam to Jesus, at least, specifically somewhat too tied for my taste to the Ussher chronology.
4) Protestant Fundamentalists (outside 7th Day Adventists) were however not catching up on this prior to Henry Morris' and John Whitcombe's The Genesis Flood. Publication date 1961.

2:37 Careful as to whom we go to for information?

So, let me resume. Theologically speaking, in and of itself, you hold the Young Earth Creationist position to be totally hunky dory, as long as there is no scientific reason against it. For Science, you are willing to go to Lyell, Darwin, Dawkins, Bessel, Herschel, Shapley and Kapteyn of whom none (possibly excepting Kapteyn) were Catholics.

But if I go for Science to Ken Ham or Carl Wieland, oh, no, I can't go to non-Catholics, because it's after all a Theological question.

But didn't I go to them for the theological question whether Biblical chronology holds? No, I had made up my mind well before that; by reading City of God.

St. Augustine, a saint and a Church Father. Is that good enough for you for a theological question?

I smell rank hypocrisy!

2:50 You go to Protestants like Isaac Newton (probably an Arian, not just Protestant) and Bessel and Herschel for Distant Starlight Problem, and to Protestants like Hutton and Lyell for Geological Deep Time, and that's OK.

If I go to Ken Ham, also a Protestant, against Geological Deep time, and to Riccioli, actually a Catholic, to solve the Distant Starlight problem by Geocentrism, that's not OK?

The hypocrisy.

"that's not good and we should be right careful about going to Protestants 2:53 so you know the church has always considered that to be a danger to our faith to to go to the Protestants"

"La vérité et l'érudition, en effet, ne sauraient être hérétiques, au point de redouter d'utiliser ce que des érudits, même hérétiques, ont écrit et exposé avec justesse". (Dom Guarin)

This scholar of the Old Testament had utilised Hebrew lexica which had been produced by Protestant scholars.

Translating the quote, which I keep on my YEC blog, for which right now I can't find the reference, it means "truth and erudition, in fact, can't be heretical, to the point of fearing to use what learned men, even heretics, have written and exposed with aptness."

Found the guy:

"Pierre Guarin, né au Tronquay (Eure) en 1678 et mort à Saint-Germain-des-Prés le 29 décembre 1729, est un moine bénédictin de la congrégation de Saint-Maur, grammairien hébraïsant et bibliothécaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés."

"and 2:59 and also as I see I mean these these lay theologians who in many cases have not 3:04 received a proper theological training um are not the best reference either even if they're Catholic"

1) What Seminar or Theological faculty had given a proper training to St. Justin martyr?
2) Didn't the FSSPX reprint the Defense of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther, even if it was written by, less pertaining, a man who later became a Schismatic, but more pertaining, a man who was a layman, Henry VIII?
3) What was the Theological training of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, famous part time lay theologian, apologist, famous for The Everlasting Man and also for The Well and the Shadows? He was decorated by Pope Pius XI. (He was also, as Kennedy Hall noted, an opponent of Darwinism, and of belief in historical sciences, even further accentuated when his friend Hilaire Belloc, also decorated, in Return to the Baltic considered the Ice Age in the Baltic region ended around the Birth of Christ, based on Danish navigation not starting earlier)
4) It was as lay theologian that St. Thomas More concluded that the Oath of Supremacy was illicit. If you note he was supported by one bishop, St. John Fisher, I counter with one bishop Richard Williamson.

"what 3:23 what I'm I'm trying to do is is provide information about what the authentic theologians of the church have taught 3:30 and these These are priests who went through a seminary formation um they 3:35 were trained in theology at a time when the church was very Orthodox"

C. F. Keil was admittedly Lutheran.

But Johann Emanuel Veith was a Catholic priest, as well as a physician. Athanasius Bosizio was a priest and a Jesuit. Alois Trissl was certainly a Catholic, whether he was a priest or a Geologist.

For G. J. Burg, V. M. Gatti, P. Laurent, A. Saignet I do not find personal informations.

I would say the Orthodoxy was somewhat declining in the 19th C. given the non-condemnation of Settele's astronomy book or astronomy chapters in a science book in 1820. However, Geocentrism was upheld by the then chief Inquisitor, if I recall his function correctly, who was overridden, one Filippo Anfossi, and it was never condemned in that context.

3:55 As the Church did not condemn Settele, who was not Orthodox in his view of cosmology, there were degrees of heterodoxy that slipped under the radar even in the 19th C. and even more so in the 20th.

5:05 If we have a Baltimore Catechism, a Catechism of St Pius X, and some other Catechism (which I am not aware of), which specifically allows for Old Earth, in the pre-Conciliar era, none of the Catechisms trump that of Trent (YEC) or the Church Fathers (like City of God, St. Augustine, a clearly YEC book).

None of these recent catechisms is per se "the teaching of the Church" but the YEC ones are in greater continuity.

"today like you said there are a lot of lay theologians 5:51 there's a lot of guys I realize the irony of what I'm saying right now there's a lot of guys sitting there 5:56 behind a microphone lay men who are instructing the faithful and um that's 6:02 not good"

The promoters of Catholic Truth Guild (at least diocesan bishops, probably the Popes) and Pope Pius XI decorating Chesterton and Belloc did not agree on that.

You take that idea from Russian Orthodox who say "oh, a lay person who has slept with his wife shouldn't be speaking on these things, we need a monk, ideally a priestmonk, who is authorised by the Church as to his status and who is also a hesychast"

THAT idea would not have flied with Pope Pius XI who knew the author of The Everlasting Man drank beer and tried to get children with his wife.

"like I I I'm not I'm not trying to throw anyone any popular YouTube 6:08 Catholic speaker under the bus even traditional ones but if they are not operating under the guidance of a priest 6:13 or a bishop um it's not really a good idea"

I note that I am not a youtuber, but a blogger. I could be thrown under the bus by both faces on the screen, and they could have used the words they used so as not to be technically lying.

I note that Kennedy Hall and Hugh Owen, as they arguably are practising are arguably enjoying the guidance or confidence of their priests.

I also note, when I was a parishioner in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, when I regularly went to confession at least once per month, and to communion at least when I had confessed, no one there told me in so many words, 2009—2011:

if you write, and since you are not a priest, you are at present a layman without guidance of a priest
this is not good
so you need to stop to write or get a priest involved.

I am not sure whether this is because they pretended to have heard through some backhanded rumour circuit that I was a monk, which I was not and did not claim to be, or whether they simply wanted me to give up, but knew they could not give me those precise words, because they are not true. Or whether they out of a purely social snobbery felt embarrassed at a homeless man writing blogs, and thought that would backfire on them if they supported me.

"you know the the the information age 6:27 that we're living in the internet age has has kind of equalized everybody with 6:32 regards to information um everybody's a journalist now everybody's a Content 6:39 producer and it kind of cancels out the the the difference between those who 6:44 have actually been trained to say what they're saying and those who have not been trained to say what they're saying"

And if that were a good thing?

Where in the sources of the faith or morals do we find any requirement of everyone who speaks up on a topic, mind you, not meaning every a) priest, who needs to know liturgy and be ordained, often enough also moral theology (those who hear confession) b) jurist who needs to know court procedure, c) doctor of medicine who needs to know general medicine and at least half the specialities at least half well, but when it comes to providing oral or written texts that everyone should need to be trained?

I do not find that. It's not there.

The closest I come is, a certain Iñigo de Loyola in Manresa was told, he was not allowed to give advice between mortal and venial sins without moral theology. He went on to become a priest and changed his name to Ignatius.

Now, I am a writer, I do not pretend to provide moral guidance to individuals asking for advice. Hence this ruling has no bearing on my function. Find another one ... or admit it doesn't exist.

I also note the formulation "trained to say what they are saying" .. like higher education teaching what to think rather than how to think ... not sure Cardinal Newman would have agreed on that one. I mean, he was the first head of the Catholic University of Dublin, as I recall.

"what I'm saying is that the 6:52 theology is is a real science and you need to be trained"

If "trained" means acquiring a specific, standardised, accredited training, I deny the requirement both for other real sciences in general and for theology in particular.

I do not mean to say a theological training from a seminary or from the Gregorianum is useless. I mean theological knowledge is possible to acquire by other venues, and it can even so be very good.

Now, I also note, there is an overreach.

We are nearly 7:00 in into the video, and all I hear is "theology, theology" but from the theological side, Young Earth Creationism is anyway known to be irreproachable.

The implication presumably is, since Tas Walker doesn't get an imprimatur, I cannot turn to him for Flood Geology, because the question is theological.

Except, of course, from the theological side, his Flood Geology adds nothing to the traditional view of a global Flood. A traditional Catholic view.

From time to time, once in a 50 or 100 articles, CMI will make a bow to the Reformers, which I will denounce or ignore. Because of that, I somehow need to ignore Tas Walker on Geology?

// Tas holds a B.Sc. (Earth Science with first class honours), a B.Eng (hons) and a doctorate in mechanical engineering, all from the University of Queensland. //

I think Tas Walker understand Geology better than Fr. Robinson.

7:21 Continue to use their knowledge. Yes, priests do that.

So do other people who have acquired knowledge and provide content.

When it comes to Catholic content providers who are YEC:

I, a blogger, have more time with excellent exams at university than Hilaire Belloc had;
as we mention Hilaire Belloc, a printed writer, in Return to the Baltic he makes a point which some would now call "science denial" namely that the Ice Age ended near the birth of Christ in the Baltic, based on lack of navigation prior to that time in that area (as far as it had been found back then), and he called science "guess work";
Kennedy Hall, videast; was a teacher and is a journalist;
Hugh Owen, videast and blogger, possibly in print, is highly educated, though I'm not sure in what;
Robert Sungenis, blogger, videast, in print and on the big screen, has a PhD.

Now, you can complain about how none of the mentioned have credentials specifically in theology. However, error can creep in in seminars, and must have done so in some areas well prior to Vatican II, which means that a theological training may on certain issues be a handicap in theology. Some others may have a fresh look at the truths of faith and be more circumspect in general knowledge outside theology, I bet Sungenis knows Einstein better than Fr. Robinson, I'm sure I made a whole length reading of City of God and discovered to my surprise that St. Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist. I am also sure, I studied St. Thomas in a Thomasic way, not a Neo-Thomistic way, since back when a Dominican Tertiary who now celebrates Extraordinary Form was teaching me Medieval Latin and offered Summa as an extra. I know the Medieval mentality from the inside, and that is my way of having acquired, in as far as I have so, the mindset of the Church.

I have continued to use my knowledge over the time I have been debating these questions on the internet, for now 23 years and more, though the content I wrote prior to late 2008 seems mostly lost, except what I had time to copy to my blogger account.

7:54 Pius XII, his Humani Generis is highly problematic. BUT it has one advantage over Fr. Robinson. He was, in principle, for debate.

At least he worded what can be interpreted as such thoughts.

Canonically speaking, the paragraphs are all over the place.

He does NOT say "believing Adam had physical ancestors is licit," and he also does NOT say "believing Adam had physical ancestors is NOT licit."

He said "Adam having physical ancestors can right now be both defended and attacked in debate, both from Biblical and scientific viewpoints, this is right now not being forbidden" ....

Now, Biblically attacking Adam having physical ancestors is however equipollent to stating it is, because of the Bible, forbidden to believe he had such. Otherwise it is pointless to state someone is not forbidden to argue against the Evolutionist thesis from a Biblical standpoint.

Obviously, arguing Adam had no physical ancestors from a scientific standpoint, is equipollent to saying either sciences that are relevant do not forbid it, or, some do perhaps not even allow it. It can be noted, the science expertise can in this case come from non-Catholics.

Pius XII did, according to his wording, not legally intend to shut down debate of the Creationist kind.

Now, what about Young Earth Creationism? He was unfortunately an old earther, and probably had overconfidence in what purported to be good science. In order to refute eternal steady state universe, in 1951, he cited a measure that earth was 5 billion years ago, according to very accurate methods. These methods are _so_ accurate that the measure has now shrunk to 4.5 billion for exactly the same samples. But above all, he showed no proof of having himself a grasp on how the method worked. He just believed whatever the scientists said. I think people from the RATE project (all of them Protestants) know more about the science of radiometric dating than Pius XII did, and on the side of radiocarbon, not yet an issue in his time, so do I.

Fulcran Vigouroux had a very good grasp on what Biblical inspiration meant. He just failed to totally apply it, but he applied it lots more than any Old Earther does today.

His position as expressed in a manual in the late 19th C. is far closer to literalism than any Old Earther today, and the position which is part of that, which he was allowed to authorise in 1909, as judge, while not authorising the rest of his positions (non-global Flood, possible gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy), as they weren't asked about, restricts the scope for Old Earth even more. The only Old Earth Creationists I know of that strictly agree with Fulcran Vigouroux at present is The Watchtower Society.

Also, as I pointed out to Gavin Ortlund, a non-global Flood would have been too shallow for the Ark to survive the turbulence. One has, with some bad faith, compared the Ark to the schooner Wyoming. Now, the part where the comparison actually is pertinent is, it was in shallow waters, c. 9 meters deep, or back then perhaps even shallower, that Wyoming succumbed to the turbulence. Surviving a Flood as deep as the Pacific or Mid-Atlantic, no problem, but a non-global Flood, no.

The quote from Fr. Kolbe, I am not familiar with, will see on the other video, whether it was #42 or #43.

8:53 "as you know, the internet is not the most virtuous forum for discussion"

That's like saying "the US is not the most virtuous forum for discussion" or "Paris is not the most virtuous forum for discussion" ...

This is getting some fairly ugly place, I think.

Suppose I may have at some point been angry, though none of my arguments, and very little of my wording would actually show that, I have been pushed out of opportunities to get my stuff into print, and hence pushed back to the street I was trying to leave, back in 2010, by at least in important part St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. Precisely because this smudging of "the internet" as if it were a substance with a quality rather than a very disparate collection of such (apart from the technology, which does have a quality, and which you are using), people who could have looked at my blogs and concluded "this might be an idea to print", well, they were pretty actively discouraged from looking because it was on the internet I had produced the texts.

Now, the other reason, very probably, was, I was very explicitly Young Earth Creationist, though they had no official position against it, they felt queezy about it. Probably more than one had, even back then, what Fr. Robinson says openly only now, as "secret but still very official" standpoint.

This injustice has cost me teeth and may be pushing me to diabetes. I am reminded of the three young men, their spiritual director, a priest of the FSSPX, told them to get out in a boat in a storm, to train their courage. The going out had no practical value, just to train their courage. They drowned, they were buried, and that priest was then put into prison and is after prison forbidden to do pastoral. That exact degree of uppity recklessness is what I have seen in the FSSPX positions, secret and now open, as to my role as a writer, and my position which is Young Earth Creationism.

I think I will go offline right now, so as to avoid actually getting angry.

9:42 My handle is my legal name.

OK, I leave out two middle names, but I give the names I use when I sign a paper in the bank.

Anyone can trace me through my handle if he cares to, and that's how I want it.

Now, I do treat priests (some of them) with less respect when on the internet, but that's because I am not tongue tied. In "real life" my respect makes me tongue tied, I can't get through what I want.

Priests have presumed on that, and dominated me. Over the internet, I have some kind of chance. In a private letter, I often cannot document for third party what I said and what the priest answered, so, again, if the priest wants to treat me poorly, he can.

11:59 "the earth was older" (than Adam, Eve, Abel and Cain) contrary to the words of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
"man was older" — highly problematic for theological anthropology.

When a Neanderthal is dated to 300 000 years old because of Potassium and Argon in lava above it, and another one to 40 000 years old (the youngest dates of actual bones) because of Carbon 14 in the human tissue itself, there are basically two options left now:

Earth is young, the Flood was global, the lava was cooled quickly in the waters of the Flood, which trapped excess argon, and so the argon date is inflated, the carbon 14 level at the Flood was c. what now adds up to 40 000 years ago, so, it would have been a reading of 35 000 years old or similar back then;
or theological statements get into ruins, not always for everyone the same ones, different solutions have different drawbacks, but theology is ruined in each of the scenarios.

You can say "La Ferrassie 1 being dated to 40 000 BP and this being correct doesn't mean heresy X is true" which is true. But if you went on to motivate a scenario about La Ferrassie 1 being dated to 40 000 BP and this being correct and X not following, then probably Y (also heretical or highly erroneous) or Z (also heretical or highly erroneous) would follow instead.

13:04 "the Protestants started the Young Earth Creation movement"

No. Lyell started the Old Earth Creation movement, he was Protestant. Cuvier was also a Protestant. Protestants were getting into Old Earth before any Catholics were.

Some Protestants started the Young Earth Creation movement, in reaction against the majority of Protestants.

And this at a time when Catholics in France were more often YEC than OEC, and when English speaking Catholics were, partly due to the Haydock Bible, mostly following Ussher chronology and typically without either Gap Theory or Day Age.

Remember, the "Second Great Awakening" movements are not less Catholic, but more Catholic than their Predecessors. If we want a 16th C. precursor for what they actually did, it's St. Francis of Sales, not Beza. I mean of course in what their difference was in comparison to previous Protestants. They unfortunately remained heirs of some of the evils from the Reformation.

For instance, this type of Protestant and Luther would both target Catholicism when speaking of "Works Salvation" ... but the actual heirs to Luther and Calvin would also target them for "Works Salvation" back then, when they claimed "Lordship Salvation" ... Luther would mean, "definite righteous acts are simply not required in relation to salvation" while this type would state more like "righteous acts are a required sign of having received salvation" ... they would still, this newer type, target Catholicism, say "you make works a condition for salvation" but the practise would not differ all that much except in sacraments and in what constitutes living according to the commandments. For Luther's disciples, a soldier could be excessively cruel in dismantling a Catholic Church, against the ones opposing that move, and yet it would not yeopardise their salvation, if they only recalled that Jesus died for their sins. For the newer bunch, a Christian has actively to step away from the sinful life, if he had lived that.

So, a movement arising in the 19th C. among Protestants does not need to be a bad one. Pusey was even in many ways liturgically more Catholic than his predecessors, and his disciple John Henry Newman was a saintly Oratorian after his conversion. And a Cardinal of the Roman Church.

13:18 "whereas the Catholic response was"

Actually pretty often Young Earth Creationist.

13:27 "to say ... there is no chronology properly speaking"

Catholics certainly were aware of different versions of Biblical chronology, for instance Syncellus had a Latin translation in Paris. Father Fulcran Vigouroux was considering, from Adam on, the chronology of the LXX, presumably the version of Syncellus held. He was in principle open, shoud geology require it, to insert gaps into the Genesis 11 genealogy, but as he thought this was not yet required, he did not really explore that option. Also, that is not one of the things he had occasion to authorise as judge in 1909. Like non-global Flood also wasn't that.

14:07 "What was the attitude in 1870 of the Catholic Church"

... on Ireland. Fr. Molloy doesn't speak for Munich or Mayence or Vienna.

14:27 Note "many" and "until a recent period" ... when Fr Molloy spoke, accepting Lyell was already becoming mainstream among Anglicans.

There were from the 1830's on books by Catholics accepting in principle Lyell, and promoting either Gap Theory, what Kenneth Copeland holds to, or Day Age, what the Russellians of the Watchtower Society hold to. In the lists of authors furnished for each position by Eugène Mangenot SJ, one or possibly both of the Old Earth positions did dominate England and US.

But Catholicism in 1870 is not equal to Anglophone Catholicism in 1870, and among the Anglophones, probably pretty many ignored those writers Molley refers to and preferred George Leo Haydock, who used the literal six days (except perhaps for the stars, see the comment on Genesis 1:16, which is also open to aliens, at least in the 1859 edition, with the quote from Walker).

15:59 "either way, this doesn't conflict with my faith"

It's more than just Biblical text on chronology that it very deeply conflicts with.

One could imagine a scenario in which it wouldn't so conflict, but it would be so far removed from what Old Earth mainstream Scientists say, that it's like saying Ruckmanist Baptist continuity doesn't conflict with Matthew 28:20. Not directly, but it conflicts very directly with recorded history.

"because um we 15:32 as Catholics we know what we believe already before we pick up the Bible and 15:37 we're able to to say is this particular interpretation of the Bible is the interpretation that the Bible is not 15:43 teaching chronology with that conflict with my faith said well no it's not going to conflict with my faith so that 15:50 leaves me freedom on on this question if if the Earth Earth is millions of years old if the Earth is 6,000 years old 15:56 either way it doesn't conflict with my faith whereas a Protestant doesn't know what he believes when when he picks up the 16:02 Bible and that's why there's all these Protestant religions the tons of them 16:08 being invented because each one picks up the Bible and interprets it in a different way he doesn't have the church there to say well this is this is what 16:14 it means here's the faith let me give you the catechism this is what you have to believe if you want to be Catholic 16:19 and when you read the Bible you just make must make sure it conforms to this Faith so it's not a surprise that that 16:26 the the Catholic response was well this does not um in any way impinge upon the 16:31 faith and Catholics are free to to believe that that this science is 16:36 compelling"

This is very cavalier about the Bible. It may be pastoral advice to laymen allowed to read the Bible, but it is not how Catholic bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or mostly even laymen have been reading the Bible.

You are basically saying "the Bible is superfluous" and denying the utility of all Scripture. II Tim. 3:14--17 doesn't say the OT without Christian exegesis is sufficient, but it does say that with it, all of it is useful.

19:56 The LXX does not have Methuselah dying after the Flood in all manuscripts, and recently a Protestant scholar has shown that not only do readings of the LXX exist where Methuselah is 189 rather than 169 when begetting Lamech, but also that the scribal error is very explicable, given the notice about Henoch contains many "sixty" figures, and also he has shown that there are authors who have read a LXX or similar text, and who have read it so that Methuselah was 189 when begetting.

So, the correct reading of the LXX does not deny Methuselah died before the Flood. The Roman martyrology reading for Christmas day is done by St. Jerome, who, up to Abraham, was using the earlier calculations of Julius Africanus. Now, this man has the pre-Flood period as 2262 years, which it is if Lamech was 189 when begetting. But this unfortunately got "corrected," so the pre-Flood period in the martyrology reading is 2242 years. He also has Genesis 11 without the II Cainan., a total of 942 years between Flood and Abraham.

21:05 These four points ...

1) Relative dates can add up to an internal chronology. From a given choice of text version, you can add up the distance of Adam to Abraham, whereever you place these in time.

I have noted the minima and maxima are 1307 + 290 (Samaritan pre-Flood + Masoretic post-Flood) = 1597 years versus 2262 + 1170 (correct LXX Genesis 5 + incorrect LXX Genesis 11) = 3432 years.

But this in and of itself is enough to exclude Old Earth scenarios, in which the distance from first man to Pharaos of Egypt (one of which lusted after Sarah in Genesis 13) is way beyond 3432 years.

2) If any combination of text versions will give too short a timeline for Old Earth creationist views on the age of man, it doesn't matter for the question that text versions differ.

3 and 4) are basically the same objection.

The genealogy which pretty certainly at least according to the usual reading of Kings (Damien Mackey has an alternative one) has gaps is in Matthew. Here, 4 generations out of more than 40 are missing. This is c. 90 % coverage of actual ancestry in the textual genealogy.

This genealogy of Matthew does not use "so and so lived so and so many years and begat so and so" which is why it was not intended to calculate the time distance from Abraham to Jesus by itself. However, this is not the case with the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, which do give that information. Hence, the context, if not the meaning of Hebrew "son" or "beget", assures it is (except for the II Cainan) the actual son. My theory of the II Cainan is, if he existed (Luke 3 exists in manuscripts without him) he was omitted in Hebrew by "damnatio memoriae" and restored in Greek bc Greeks did not have this custom.

"led the 21:17 scripture manuals to say"

Are they mentioned by name in part 1?

22:02 I note, like Pius XII, Ernesto Ruffini was not prepared for what kind of extension carbon dates and argon dates would make of the human timeline, but even if he was, he was not exploring the implications for theology of such timelines.

24:18 "they have a totally different way of writing the old testament"

A way that differs significantly on some points, yes. If you go from panorama to close-up (Genesis 1 to 2) or inversely from close-up to panorama (Apocalypse 19 to 20, the thousand years started with spiritual resurrection from AD 33 on), a modern writer would signal this transition. To a Hebrew it would have arguably been noticed subliminally, no big deal to make a fuss of.

But differring significantly on some points and differring totally are not the same thing.

25:38 They obviously have some focus on how many calendar years passed, even if they didn't have calendars with year numbers.

Otherwise they wouldn't be giving numbers of years of lifespans.

Just as much as ancestry matters, longevity matters to Orientals these days. It was important that Methuselah lived 969 years. Longevity is a sign of the blessing of God.

This is about how much you project from Orientals these day back to the Bible writers.

If you simply meant "we can see the narrative isn't totally linear" — guess what, neither are narratives in history books. I had a "History of the fatherland" in Swedish and it was all the time giving a Swedish timeline, catching up in a more international one, proceeding beyond the one of Sweden, catching up with the Swedish line of events and so on. Reality is not one timeline of one person, it's multiple timelines of multiple persons. Switching from one to another is not unheard of in how we narrate things, unless you have a very limited experience of contemporary narratives, perhaps focussed on short stories narrated in first person singular.

Exotifying a person or group of such is one tactic to avoid dealing what he or they actually are saying.

26:36 Cardinal Ruffini has less authority than Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Mark 10:6 and Luke 17:50,51 contradict this position.

It's notable that he said "centuries" and not "millions of years" ... that might be a turn of the Italian rhetoric I'm not familiar with ..

28:41 I totally agree that is three different dates. 2023 and 3509 years are not the same.

He may have missed out some on different text versions within the LXX family, but overall, it's pretty correct.

Now, 2023 or 3509 years from the first man to a contemporary of a pharao, that still excludes the idea of Rahan living 20 000 years ago, or La Ferrassie having lived, as per carbon date, 40 000 years ago, if she was human (and yes, there is now compelling evidence Neanderthals were that).

29:26 When he states 5613 according to LXX, he is actually giving the LXX Genesis 11 a total of too many years.

5613	3519	3444
2094	0075	2242
3519	3444	1202

According to my rapid deduction, he's giving the LXX Genesis 11 a total of 1202 years. Part of that may be agreeing with Ussher that Abraham wasn't born immediately when his father was 70, I disagree, but even if so, that would leave perhaps 1170 years for the generations mentioned in Genesis 11, and even with the second Cainan, it's really only 1070, the English editions differring from the Greek manuscripts.

29:56 "a serious reason to believe they are not complete"

Sorry. No.

A) The single generation difference between versions of the LXX and the other versions, namely the Second Cainan, can be explained in two ways.

1) Manuscripts of the LXX took him over from Luke 3, where he is a scribal error;
2) or he really existed, was omitted as a magician (this is how he is represented in Historia Scholastica) in the Hebrew text, known only by oral tradition, and inserted by the LXX as Greek didn't have the custom of omitting evil-doers.

Either way, this is to exceptional, it doesn not constitute any reason to doubt the completeness of the two genealogies apart from him. He would make a difference of 128 or 130 years.

B) The holes in the Matthean genealogy are similar to theory 2 on II Cainan, at least as far as three of them are concerned. Either way, there is a difference between a genealogy omitting about 10 % which is what the Matthean one does, or one giving only about 10 % or 5 % or less, which is what you would need to push Adam significantly back in time.

30:41 No such necessity. Cardinal Ruffini severley underestimates the capacity of human memory to memorise long chunks of text.

This is a modern condition, in societies where paper is abundant, and little has to be confided to learning by heart.

If each of the genealogies had in reality been 4 times as long, it could have been memorised, at least if subdivided into more chunks.

So, this technical reason is a non-reason.

Aoidoi have memorised the entire Iliad and the entire Odyssey. Each song was performed sequentially, without pause, so 400 to 600 lines of hexameter had to be memorised as one unit.

31:53 Three well known kings are omitted.

The son, grandson, greatgrandson of Athaliah.

Her husband was not omitted, since he died before her heinous sins, but the three subsequent generations are.

This is a perfect parallel to omitting the second Cainan bc of sorcery, if he existed and was an "accursed generation" ... nothing like it is a parallel to pretending the 2*10 generations were really 200 or 400 generations. Which is what you need to squeeze in modern datings (which the cardinal had no access to, most of his life) between Adam and Abraham.

32:06 The omissions in Matthew are not "many" ... they are nothing like an argument for "many" gaps, but with modern carbon dates, it's not so much as Swiss cheese genealogy you want as a genealogy with more holes than cheese!

32:23 Cardinal Ruffini and I agree that the first 11 chapters are hastier than the subsequent ones. We differ as to why.

1) He argues, Moses made the choice.
2) I argue, Abraham received chapters 1 to 11 or possibly just 2 to 11 (if Moses received chapter 1 by revelation) orally. He wrote them down. Subsequent chapters were original compositions in writing, which the Beduin tribe could actually keep in their luggage pretty easily. So, I argue, it's due to the peripeties of transmission.

The latter not being such, since human memory is not such, that longer genealogical lists could not have been memorised and transmitted.

33:04 What exact type of leeway do you want?

From Adam to Jesus, with consecutive generations, as they have always been held to actually be, with the possible exception of a second Cainan between Arphaxad and Saleh, a leeway of 3500 to 5600 years.

Without the consecutive succession of generations, how many years do you want?

Note, all of the leeway has to be placed in the first 1500 to 3600 years.

In order to make them 36 000 years, making for 38 000 years BC or 40 000 years BP, you basically need sth like only one generation in every ten being actually noted. That's a fairly stark, even ridiculous claim. Especially as the lifespans at birth of son not only give the impression of inviting to a chronology, but the invitation has often been taken, as ealy as by Julius Africanus.

To the credit of cardinal Ruffini, he wrote these fairly alienating comments, as they are now in face of carbon dates, at a time when there were no carbon dates for early human skeleta. He may have meant sth like extending the genealogies to perhaps just the double time, like 6000 years.

If he did, he would have been in agreement with Protestant Young Earth Creationists back then.

In the time of Edgar Andrews, a Young Earth Creationist was one who refused Gap Theory and Day Age Theory, starting the universe within hours from Adam. And typically, they did, even among Protestant Fundamentalists, agree on extending the age of mankind to starting up to 10 000 years ago.

It is actually around the year 2000 and after Internet arose, that Protestant Fundamentalists, and usually not the most Anti-Catholic, not the least Catholic ones, have started taking the "gapless genealogies" approach. That's after the Palmarian Catechism did so. I'm not defending the revelations of Palmar de Troya, but their theological reception did involve an inerrantist approach to the Biblical chronology, more precisely in Vulgate format.

"it's um a number that's chosen to assist with 34:15 remembering these genealogical tables you know I don't remember at what 34:21 point um I think it might have been the early 1900s the the uh literature critics were were studying The Odyssey 34:29 and someone was able to pick out he's like look wait a second um there are certain repetition of phrases in The 34:37 Odyssey that seem to be certain handles for for an oral poet to 34:45 grab on to soort memorization cues to to grab on to uh the description of the sea 34:51 or the description of Athena you know and so this was this was certain evidence that the Odyssey was an a poem 34:59 that was delivered orally before it was written down"

I do remember the study. Milman Parry studied a parallel among Balkan singers of epic poetry, specifically Serbian ones, memorising the battle of Kosovo Polje. He considered this shed quite some light on the Classical epics.

The length of the things that actually can be remembered, even as a unit (each of the 24 songs of each of the Iliad and Odyssey was ultimately memorised as a unit), makes total mayhem of the argument you propose. The Iliad is 15 693 lines long, that's an average of 654 per song. The Odyssey is 12 109 lines long, an average of 505 lines per song, I think the longest one is 800 lines plus long. The formula "X lived n years and begot Y, after he begot Y, his days were m years, [and all of his days were l years]" is quite sufficient to make long genealogies possible to remember, precisely in the way that Homeric formulas did, so, the fact that "10 is easy to remember" is not really adding all that much to the memorisation process of an oral performer.

35:13 You claim writing came later.

That's a common thesis.

Now, Adam would have been able to invent writing.

The question is, did he?

He would definitely have been expert at giving indications on how to memorise. And one way to memorise is ... initials.

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam.

I memorised that short psalm by writing down initials, E for AE, so NDED IVLQEE. Or was the line about "civitatem" first? NDCC FVQCE ...

So, it is arguable that even priorising memorisation, Adam would have invented writing as an ease for memorisation at an early stage.

Now very late, a certain Genevieve von Petzinger, not even a believing Christian, and definitely an Evolutionist, has found in the cave arts over the globe, or over the Old World, from Indonesia to Spain, 32 symbols that are not simply depictions. Hebrew alphabet plus vowels? Or, plus numerals?

I don't know. But the dates are, carbon wise, 40 000 to 10 000 BP, the oldest one being the hashtag. So if Adam did invent writing, we have arguably found a trace of it. Writing certainly existed prior to the Iliad and Odyssey, it's just that this being the speciality of tax collectors, the Iliad in a flashback on Bellerophon speaks of "semata lugra" ...

35:24 way, way after

Here is the comment by Fr. George Leo Haydock, using the Masoretic / Ussher chronology:

[Genesis 3:24] 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)

Using a LXX chronology, I see the minimal overlaps a bit differently, but as I consider Abraham started to commit parts of Genesis to writing, starting with what he had learned of the first 11 chapters (including or minus the six day account), it is still very little room for distortion as per my minimal overlaps either:

Adam — Mahalaleel
Mahalaleel — Noah
Noah — Shem
Shem — Eber
Eber — Serug
Serug — Abraham

38:35 By now there is better evidence.

1) There are carbon dates. A carbon date of 40 000 BP or 38 000 BC can be seen as a few different things.

a) 40 000 years ago, there lived these people, the atmosphere had 100 pmC and that's why we find 0.792 pmC now.
b) A bit before the Flood, in c. 3000 BC or c. 5000 years ago, there lived these people, the atmosphere gave an instant age of 35 000 years, so it was as low as 1.45 pmC, and since that has decayed for 5000 years, we now have ... 1.45 * 54.616 / 100 = 0.791932 pmC now.
c) A bit after Babel, 4200 years ago (Ussher view), the people so dated lived with, for some reason the carbon 14 level requisite for an instant age of 35800 years, and that means 1.316 pmC. Since 4200 years lapsed since then, we get the multiplication 1.316 * 60.166 / 100 = 0.79178456 pmC.

Note, uniformitarians (not meaning people who believed in uniform laws of nature, but rather uniform atmospheric levels of c. 100 pmC) will also say that the samples had 1.45 pmC 5000 years ago and 1.316 pmC 4200 years ago. They differ from YEC on whether either could be the original pmC, stating "no, the original pmC was c. 100" ...

2) Some of the creatures dated to 40 000 years ago are not Homo sapiens. However, thanks to Svante Pääbo, we know their genes are in parts of today's human populations. Both Neanderthals and Denisovans. For each we also have evidence of human behaviour that may have not yet been available to Cardinal Ruffini when he wrote. So, we can say for certain they descend from Adam.

3) So, accepting carbon dates as they are would push mankind back 40 000 years. Not accepting carbon dates as they are requires a rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere. Going from zero to c. 100 pmC would with today's production rates for carbon 14 take 30 000 years. In order to get it reasonably close to at most 10 000 years, ideally 6 or 7000 years ago, one would need to have had in the past a higher production of carbon 14.

4) As the production of carbon 14 is not a per se constant, but a resultant, this is feasible, rejecting uniformity of levels and production rates, while keeping uniformity of laws of nature.

With these people just before the Flood in 2957 BC, as I hold Neanderthals should be placed, the rise from just over 1 / under 2 pmC at the Flood to c. 100 pmC at the fall of Troy would take a production rate of medium 5 times as fast, my tables actually vary this from at times between Flood and Babel 20 times as fast, and to down to just three times as fast from fall of Jericho to fall of Troy or if that was even birth of Moses to fall of Jericho (I have archaeology line-ups with the Bible, and these carbon dated for each), this would at first have been a factor in producing the Ice Age and in producing the drop of lifespans, as recorded over Genesis 11.

Hence, item b) for how to interpret these carbon dates definitely is my pick.

39:07 He could not in 1959, when he wrote the book, have been well researched in carbon dates. Citing wiki:

"Libby and James Arnold proceeded to test the radiocarbon dating theory by analyzing samples with known ages. For example, two samples taken from the tombs of two Egyptian kings, Zoser and Sneferu, independently dated to 2625 BC plus or minus 75 years, were dated by radiocarbon measurement to an average of 2800 BC plus or minus 250 years. These results were published in Science in December 1949. Within 11 years of their announcement, more than 20 radiocarbon dating laboratories had been set up worldwide."

Presumably, by 1960, such that would tend to confirm the method by comparison with for instance Egyptological material.

Not yet using it confidently to date Neanderthals.

39:51 Yes, I heard 1933 right. Here is what Wiki says in Augustine Bea, section Bibliography:

De Pentateucho Institutiones Biblicae Scholis Accomodatae, Romae, 1933

This was before even the idea of carbon dating. So, this was back when accepting old earth and old humanity might mean simply pushing Adam only as far back as 10 000 years ago.

Precisely as Edgar Andrews did. A man who back in From Nothing to Nature leaned towards Young Earth Creationism and is now an Old Earth Creationist. That would take some gaps in the genealogies, but would potentially not be fatal to a faithful transmission from the Genesis 3 event to Moses.

If one accepts 40 000 years, I think that would be fatal.

a) Trojan War was two periods of together c. 700 years before the sons of Peisistratos put it into writing, Homer being the division and coming about halfway. Note, while I defend Homeric truth, I think Homer did some distortion too. According to Walter Leaf, all about Achilles and Hector, indeed all about Hector, was added for human interest. At least an option.
b) Homer to sons of Peisistratos, if not in years, at least in generational overlaps, is comparable to Haydock's Adam to Moses or my Adam to Abraham.
c) Kosovo Polje to 1928 when Milman Parry wrote is 639 years. That's somewhat longer than Homer to sons of Peisistratos, but not twice.

So, a faithful transmission purely orally of 40 000 years, I think is out of question.

It's not just a question of learning by heart, but language and concepts would change a lot in that amount of time, and that would imply distortions that accumulate. For a faithful transmission of Genesis 3, stick with Young Earth. And that chapter is so important, like both Original Sin and Mary's sinlessness.

§§ Hagen 1904, according to my Latin knowledge:

he's saying that old rediscovered history makes 4000 years from Adam to Christ too short
that assuming it longer (i e than 4000 years) is not against the Bible.

Simply taking a LXX chronology would suffice for that.

I think he was also overestimating the veracity of Egyptian and Sumerian chronicles.

Narmer would on Egyptian sources be dated c. 3000 BC or a little earlier, I'd say that's probably the pharao Abraham met. About 1000 + years more recently.

Libby dated Zoser or Djoser to 2800 BC, Egyptian sources date him to 2625 (2750 to 2500), I'd say he was Joseph's pharao, and died c. 1700 BC.

Both Egyptians and Sumerians had a doctrine of the unity of the territory. Rival dynasties in rival places would after they were both gone get recorded as one coming before another in a unified Egypt or a unified Shumerum and Akkadum. That unity being fiction in service of ideology.

He's obviously very far from stating anything in favour of taking Adam as before 40 000 years ago.

41:26 I would say "monuments" gives an architectural and statuary connotation in English, while the Latin "monumentum" has a connotation also spanning literature.

He's probably referring to Egyptians giving such and such regnal dates (relative ones, mind you!) in things like the Karnak Kings List, that it adds up to Egypt starting 3000 + BC.

41:52 When it comes to Vigouroux, I'd say, the one idea of his that actually does get approved (by his own pen) in the Pontifical Biblical Commission is pure Day-Age, no extensions of Genesis 5 or 11.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

In an article on Biblical chronology it is hardly necessary in these days to discuss the date of the Creation. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort.

Well, the 200 attempts show a persistence of the doctrine, if not dogma, that generations in Genesis 5 and 11 are consecutive.

A bit later we find:

In fact, M. Guibert is of opinion that with our present knowledge there is nothing compelling us to extend the existence of man beyond 10,000 years.

That makes M. Guibert, at least with respect to human existence, a Young Earth Creationist. Not strictly Biblical, but Young Earth with some latitude. The longer estimates on Biblical timelines put Abraham c. 3000 years and more after Adam, but 10 000 BP = 8000 BC = 6000 before Abraham, it simply doubles the amount of time. No more than that.

42:15 Silvestre de Sacy [cited by Vigouroux] seems to have been a Jansenist.

44:02 Quoting the article:

The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity.

That was arguably the case in France and the English world, especially with a focus on the learned, but this was not universal.

44:17 Thank you very much for showcasing the authors' list. Two works are by Archibald Sayce. A man known precisely for the idea genealogies weren't meant to be taken literally:

SAYCE, Early History of the Hebrews (London, 1897); SAYCE, Higher Criticism and the Monuments (London, 1894);

1) He wrote before the work of Milman Parry.
2) He based it on regnal genealogies (I think we could see them as a hybrid between king lists and genealogies, imagine stating Lewis XIV had a "son" named Lewis XV and the latter a "son" named Lewis XVI (they are in fact great-grandson and grandson, respectively), and these genealogies are those of pagan nations. Applying this to Biblical non-royalty is in my view reckless.
3) As you go around warning people against taking your view of the Bible from Ken Ham (even if he agrees perfectly with Fr. Haydock on genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11), because he's a Protestant and not a Catholic, Archibald Henry Sayce was a non-Catholic non-priest:

"In 1869, Sayce was appointed a lecturer at Queen's College. He was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1870. Ongoing problems with his sight almost led to the end of his Oxford career and Sayce spent much of his time travelling Europe. It was only from 1874, when he came under the supervision of ophthalmologist Richard Liebreich, that Sayce was able to continue his academic career. In the same year he was appointed as the university's representative in the Old Testament Revision Company. Sayce also began to deliver lectures to the Nineveh Society of Biblical Archaeology and contributed to The Times and the New York Independent. In 1876 Sayce was appointed the Deputy Professor of Comparative Philology, a role shared with the continuing Professor, Max Müller, who wanted to reduce his duties."

He collaborated to a Bible revision which had no imprimatur or imprimi potest.

If you call out Catholics for agreeing with Ken Ham, that's truly "the pot calling the kettle black" ... or worse. By the way, if you are going to cite Fr. Rudolph Bandas, he's also one of those citing Archibald Sayce.

I checked the works mentioned as cited, and yes, they are on the same wiki article.

"the 44:22 pre-Vatican II consensus, giving the prev Vatican 2 consensus of perfectly Orthodox Catholic exegetes on 44:31 on these questions um pretty much unanimous that"

You mean pre-Vatican II within the American episcopates?

"the the Bible is not 44:37 teaching a chronology and the that that belief from 44:42 before that maybe there was actual dating going on there that the Bible was providing this information um this idea 44:48 was was abandoned"

The "belief from before ... was abandoned" ... sounds like what Modernism usually does.

"this this is not modernism this this is this is 44:54 just simply um proper Catholic interpretation of45:00 scripture"

And Fiducia Supplicans is just proper Catholic pastoral?

"if they if 46:11 they found this science compelling and they did not find it as an attack on the 46:17 faith is as some way to undermine religion um then we shouldn't look at it 46:23 as um a threat to to our Catholic faith"

You are reifying "this science" as if it were the same thing back in their days as today. No, it has changed since.

Both positions leading to pretending Deep Time is proven and positions not very damageable to the faith have changed. As to the former, people are capable of relying on old conclusions even if the evidence has changed.

I've already mentioned how threats to the faith in the so-called science has accumulated, let's change gears and see about proofs of Deep Time.

A) "Pyrenees are much older than Alps, but even Pyrenees are too high for World Wide Flood" — this idea that the Pyrenees had once looked at steep as the Alps, but then flattened down due to vastly superior amounts of erosion no longer has the same compelling force, at least Creation Scientists would say the Pyrenees simply rose in a somewhat different way.
B) "Older faunas are buried under newer faunas" — with today's possibilities to verify things by the internet, I have personally been able to prove this only holds for marine biota. Land biota are found one "layer" at any given place.
C) "Distant Starlight" — as unlike the heirs of the Enlightenment who were mostly around in 1820, I enjoy the mental freedom to agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, I see no proof positive for Heliocentrism, therefore not for α Centauri being 4 light years away, therefore not for certain other stars being 13 billion light years away either.

"whatever they can really 46:59 demonstrate to be true of physical nature we must show to be capable of 47:05 reconciliation with our scriptures and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these scriptures of 47:11 ours that is to the Catholic faith we must either prove it as well as 47:17 we can to be entirely false so if it if it contradicts the 47:23 faith"

St. Augustine found Deep Time totally incompatible with the faith.

See City of God.

He specifically argues against Egyptian and similar paganisms (I think he ignored the Sumerian one, but the same arguments apply) that extend the timeline by lots of tens or hundreds of thousands of years beyond the Biblical timeline.

But moreoever, he used some key words which don't apply to Uniformitarian science as it pretends to argue Deep Time. Let me explain what Uniformitarian means. It is not "laws of nature were the same before" that I object to, but "processes had the same intensity before" ... the intensity of a process does not always result directly from one law of nature, so it could only vary if the laws of nature varied. When it results from some interplay or otherwise contingent factor, that factor can very well have been different.

If you saw la Seine year after year, you might think it would never reach the Suave at the Pont de l'Alma ... but it did (even in recent years).

Again, the speed with which layers of sediment were laid down is not "their physical nature" since we know speeds vary. And recently Guy Berthaud has demonstrated that in ultrasaturated solutions, precipitation and instant layering may be very rapid.

48:17 "While the Protestants" (meaning not all, not even a majority, not even a pretty large minority, but the Young Earth Creationist minority) "do."

Perhaps because they have actually investigated Lyell a bit more?

Lyell’s aim in this 3-volume work (1830–33), was to “free the science from Moses”,(7) i.e. to free geology from the time-frame of Genesis, and hence delete the Bible’s early history. This is what he confided in a letter to his friend, geologist and fellow naturalist George Poulett Scrope, who was about to write a review of Vol. I of Lyell’s Principles of Geology for the Quarterly Review:

“I am sure you may get into Q. R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses … . I conceived the idea five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down [i.e. repudiated—Ed.] without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine … .”(8)

Footnotes (7) Catchpoole, D., and Walker, T., Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science “from Moses”. creation.com/lyell, 19 August 2009.
and (8) Letter of Charles Lyell to George Poulett Scrope, June 14, 1830, Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Edited by his Sister-in-law, Mrs Lyell, John Murray, 1881, Vol. I, pp. 268–71.

The article is
Charles Lyell: the man who tried to rewrite history
by Russell Grigg | This article is from
Creation 36(4):36–39, October 2014
https://creation.com/charles-lyell

While Russell Grigg was (he died in January) very pro-Reformation, much more than some of the younger bunch at CMI, I think he was capable of giving a correct citation from Lyell, and some accurate assessment on him.

49:01 Would you mind trying to dig up what that Protestant Pastor was?

And why was the SSPX closer to finding a Protestant Pastor than a Creation Scientist?

51:12 I disagree.

I disagree that a scientist has to be unbiassed in order to do objectively correct research.

a) one may surprise oneself and one's bias once one does research
b) and the objective correctness of research is better served by free debate than by each scientist doing a preliminary exercise of eliminating biasses.

Such exercises would be very likely to prove illusory, or self defeating, especially illusory in Evolution believers (as I think Fr. Robinson will agree) and perhaps especially self-defeating in those who sincerely live up to this "removal of bias" ...

"because if 51:14 if we go into the saying the Bible must teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old 51:20 then we're not going to be able to evaluate that scientific evidence objectively"

First of all, bias and passion are not always proportional.

Second, Young Earth Creationism actually is not tied to 6000 years, I believe the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day (though it should be extended by 20 years, as the pre-Flood period was 2262 and not 2242 years long).

Third, much as I value your conclusion against Mutations and Natural Selection producing actual new structures of information, new cell types with new tissue types, made from more than one new gene, and each of them hundreds of loci away from pure chaos, that won't happen, even with billions of years, the research is a topic that's independent of the age of the earth question.

I came to the same conclusion even without first eliminating Young Earth, so it's false this has to be eliminated first.

52:14 Not just the continental drift, but also the rising of Mount Everest is still happening today.

My calculation allows for the rising of the Himalayas to have slowed down, so why not the continental drift?

I mean slowed down and initially have been quick enough for things to be the distance or height they are today, obviously.

The distance from Recife to Yaoundé is 5 311 km. The present speed of continental drift is 4 cm/year.

The Flood was 5000 years ago. Let's say things have slowed down extremely evenly.

Medium speed would be c. 1 km per year, divided between two different tectonics.

Since 4 cm is basically like nil compared to that, the initial speed would have been 2 km per year. That's just 5.48 m per day. Pretty fast, though, so, let's suppose it was even faster than that during parts of the Flood, there was a headstart of 1000 km separation just during the Flood.

Leaves 4000 km in 5000 years. 800 meters per year, initial speed 1.6 km per year, 4.38 m per day. Now, the oldest Paleo-Indian site in South America is ...

Monte Verde is a Paleolithic archaeological site in the Llanquihue Province[1] in southern Chile, located near Puerto Montt, Los Lagos Region. It contains two separate layers, the younger Monte Verde II, dating to 14,500 cal BP, and an older, much more controversial layer (Monte Verde I) suggested to date to 18,500 cal BP (16,500 BC).

To find out what that really was, I suggest consulting my tables and doing some math:

2712 BC
17.576 pmC, so dated 17062 BC

2686 BC
24.062 pmC, so dated 14486 BC

(2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2712 + 2686) / 5 = 2707 BC
(17.576 + 17.576 + 17.576 + 17.576 + 24.062) / 5 = 18.8732 pmC
2707 + 13 800 = 16 507 BC (QEI)

Carbon dated 16 500 BC = 2707 BC. 2957 - 2707 = 250 years.

So, if the movement initially made South America inhabitable for 250 years, that's not a problem. Let's say that at 200 after the Flood, the width had attained 0.618 * 5311 km = 3282 km.

This leaves the time after Monte Verde at 5311 - 3282 = 2029 km.

2707 + 2024 = 4731 years.

2029 km / 4731 years = 429 m / year = 1.175 m / day, initial speed 2.351 m / day.

Then the initial 250 years had to be 3282 km / 250 years = 13 128 m / year = 36 m per day in medium, ending in 2.351 m per day.

36 - 2.351 = 33.649 m/day
36 + 33.649 = 69.649 m/day initially, just after the Flood.

Would 2.351 m/day be detrimental to the habitation of Monte Verde?

2351 mm / 24 = 98 mm / h
98 mm / 60 = 1.633 / min
1.633 / 60 = 0.027 mm / sec

While one might argue, South America is a big chunk to move that fast, if there was one tectonic plate, moving over the magma, this would perhaps be doable without too much earthquakes, plus we don't know that Monte Verde wasn't abandoned for that reason.

52:21 "those numbers do not point to 6000 years either"

Well, do you suppose the continental drift is a law of nature with an exact speed?

No. If it started out very fast, it would still have been slowing down ever since, and therefore have reached 4 cm / year by now.

53:03 I have no doubt that Rockies formed by collision of two plates under or after the Flood.

Let's suppose they were set in motion against each other at the Flood, like the Himalayas.

In "Himalayas, quater" I took the speed of rising mountains as ...

51.8555 meters per year * 100 years = 5 185.55 meters (about φ times present height). The initial speed of rise would, just after the Flood, have been 290.425 meters per year.

Unless the very unfamiliar subject made me go very awry on the calculations.

53:22 If my view is correct, in the early post-Flood era, earthquakes and volcanic activity would have made anywhere near the Rocky Mountains a very hazardous place.

Now, the nearest place to them among Paleo-Indian sites is Cooper's Ferry, which is 341 miles West of the Rockies, most other places being East of them. And even further away.

That's dated to 15,700 years ago, 13 700 BC = ?

2686 BC
24.062 pmC, so dated 14486 BC

2659 BC
30.528 pmC, so dated 12459 BC

(2686 + 2686 + 2659) / 3 = 2677 BC
24.062 + 24.062 + 30.528) / 3 = 26.2173 pmC
2677 + 11 050 = 13 727 BC (close enough)

2957 - 2677 = 280

So, 280 years after the Flood, you have people settling 341 miles or 548.8 km West of the Rockies, still not on them.

This argues inhabitability, right?

While Ötzi, who died some time after Genesis 14, in 1845 BC, carbon dated 3245 BC, found the Alps sufficiently habitable to at least dare to climb up into them.

2957 - 1845 = 1112 years after the Flood.

"and we know that that 53:41 this could not have happen over a period of just 6,000 years it takes a long time 53:46 it's a very slow process by by which these these continent these plates actually move but the fact is we can 53:53 observe the plates today in real time we can observe their Movement we can feel the effects of their movement with with 54:00 the earthquakes and the tsunamis and and all that and the disasters that that they cause"

So, after the Flood, the process was much faster, and key areas were much less inhabitable than now. Himalayas, no habitations or human remains for 500 years, Rockies, dito, Alps, I think the first man found in them is Ötzi, more than 1000 years after the Flood, and I think similar observations could be made for the rest of the high mountains that rose after the Flood.

Le Mas d’Azil is in the Pyrenees, but only at a present elevation of 275–580 m (902–1,903 ft)

Cova Gran, Lleida, is 155 m (509 ft) above sea level, and it seems the habitation was pre-Flood.

This would be earlier [post-Flood] and higher:

Two main sites indicate human presence in the central zone of the Pyrenees during the late Pleistocene (Fig. 4.1). Both are situated in valleys. The first of these is in the open air, on a ridge in the Segre valley, in the town of Montlleó (Cerdanya) at 1140 m a.s.l. Archaeological excavations have identified two hunter-gatherer occupation phases dated between 18,360 and 16,700 cal BC (Mangado et al. 2005, 2009).

The Beginning of High Mountain Occupations in the Pyrenees. Human Settlements and Mobility from 18,000 cal BC to 2000 cal BC
First Online: 05 August 2017
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-55982-7_4

16,360 BC would be 2712 BC / 2686 BC, not doing the calculation again.

Roc de les Orenetes is Copper Age / Bronze Age, like Ötzi close to Abraham's times.

Vallée de l'Escou, Bronze Age.

Labastide has an elevation of 532–800 m (1,745–2,625 ft, avg. 540 m or 1,770 ft) and we deal with a younger carbon date than Segre valley.

Plus it arguably served as only ceremonial visit place, it's a place with cave paintings.

The Forat de l'Embut cave, located at an altitude of 2,235 meters, is the highest prehistoric cave with signs of human occupation discovered in the Pyrenees to date.

But, 5500 years ago carbon dated = times of Genesis 14.

Gargas cave, of Fr. Breuil fame, is near Aventignan, also a low elevation. 2884~2860 BC ....

"the discovery of evidence of a of a huge 54:25 meteorite that that struck the Earth some some time in the distant past where 54:31 in the Yucatan Peninsula there's there's this massive crator that that is is kind of hidden but but it it created this 54:38 this sort of trench they can see to this day and they know that it must have been a meteorite because the meteorites have 54:46 this element called Iridium this it's very rare on the earth and if we have Iridium"

Uniformitarians pretend this Iridium layer was at the K-T extinction event, and distinct from another one from the P-T extinction event ("Kretaceous"-Tertiary vs Permian-Triassic).

I would hold, the Iridium layers we find are from the Flood, the Yucatán peninsula was struck during the Flood, the various classification between K-T and P-T depend on fossils in the "surrounding" layers. There is one place on earth where the K-T Iridium layer has fossils both above and below, that's Yacoraite, and the fossils below and above it are identical, they are sweetwater slugs.

56:01 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened

A meteorite, like a volcano eruption, could well be instrumental in opening up those fountains of the great deep, which in 8:2 of the same book we find closed, and probably depleted.

"much older than 6000 years ago"

Based on what?

"had to be catastrophic"

Like the Flood.

57:24 Between Himalayas rising over 70 million years and God creating the Himalayas like on Creation day but after the Flood, there datur tertium.

They were started by processes moving much faster in the Flood, and this was part of how God drained off the Flood waters. The processes have since then slowed down.

Even Uniformitarians admit a slowing down:

During the Upper Cretaceous, about 70 million years ago, the north-moving Indo-Australian Plate (which has subsequently broken into the Indian Plate and the Australian Plate[20]) was moving at about 15 cm (5.9 in) per year.

Confer:

Today, the Indian plate continues to be driven horizontally at the Tibetan Plateau, which forces the plateau to continue to move upwards.[22] The Indian plate is still moving at 67 mm (2.6 in) per year, and over the next 10 million years, it will travel about 1,500 km (930 mi) into Asia. About 20 mm per year of the India-Asia convergence is absorbed by thrusting along the Himalaya southern front. This leads to the Himalayas rising by about 5 mm per year, making them geologically active.

I obviously consider the slowing down is more important than that, but still.

[Two quotes from
Wiki: Himalayas: Geology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Geology]

57:43 Father Molloy is under the impression that those mountains had long ago ceased rising and were crumbling down, eroding.

Or rather, he was, when he wrote this.

It's like the ideology I have mentioned in which Pyrenees are older than the Alps, because they are more worn down. Either way, he's giving a false alternative.

59:02 Young earth creationists agree with his sentiment, if they are anything like into Creation Science.

The luxuriant vegetation was pre-Flood, the dinosaurs we find were typically pre-Flood.

59:32 The lithic layers can be seen all around the world. In marine environments, a selection of different fossil layers as well.

B U T in land fauna, we do not find superposed layers around the world.

Fr. Molloy gives a shortcut to what the geologists had actually discovered, the same shortcut that is found in text books, and on which even Kent Hovind knows what to say:

The Geological Column is only found in the text-books.

If you don't mind, I'll link to sth along these lines from Ark Encounter:

Why Haven’t We Found Dinosaur and Human Fossils Together?
Ark Encounter | 10 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLkyi4Bu638

1:01:26 The craters of Pluto could obviously come from the time of the Flood.

"we cannot conceive how massive it is just like one single Lightyear is like 10 1:02:45 trillion kilometers or 10 you know with with 12 zeros Bes one a one with with 12 1:02:51 zeros beside it 10 trillion kilometers and the closest stars like maybe four Alpha 1:02:58 centari maybe four Lighty years that's the closest star so um and to think that 1:03:03 our Milky Way galaxies 100,000 Lighty years across and then that there's billions of galaxies"

In fact, all of those values are moot, as they all directly (for Alpha Centauri) or indirectly (for 100 000 light years across) depend on Heliocentrism.

"what the astronomers have done is is they have built a what's 1:03:45 called a distance ladder"

Yes, and if one very basic rung of that distance ladder is moot, like the distances "found" by parallax, then everything beyond it is moot as well.

That's why Geocentrism truly fixes this problem.

"but anyway how how do 1:05:08 astronomers know how far these galaxies are away they they construct a distance 1:05:15 ladder the first step is something called Parallax so the the Earth 1:05:21 rotating around the Sun every year"

Thank you. Exactly how all of the distance ladder depends on Heliocentrism.

"the older 1:04:07 stars are only burning hydrogen and helium whereas the newer stars are 1:04:13 burning heavier elements you can tell what elements are burning in each star 1:04:20 because there's uh you pass the light through a prism or a filter 1:04:26 and you can see these defraction lines and certain lines are blacked out and 1:04:32 and where they are blacked out lets you know what elements are burning in those Stars"

I think you actually confuse the doctrine you have learned.

The younger stars are supposed to still have Hydrogen and Helium to go, while the older are supposed to have switched to heavier elements.

This idea of where the elements come from (fusion in stars) by the way lacks explanations for elements even as heavy as iron. Or possibly somewhat heavier, I think I did see a limit somewhere there. No stars while burning are fusing Uranium into being. I think I saw a page explaining it as they form when stars with heavy elements explode, so when lumps of heavy elements are exploded against each other, even heavier ones are supposed to sometimes form.

I find it at least as believable God created all elements in the Creation week 7250 years ago.

(2024 + 5199 + 20 = 7243, 20 is for correcting 2242 into 2262 for pre-Flood era)

"sorry the the younger 1:04:55 Galaxies have the heavier elements and the older galaxies do not have the heavier elements"

You are confused about what science you were taught.

The older stars are supposed to have them, because they have had time to form, while the younger stars would still be at the stage of hydrogen / helium.

"is it not possible that God has1:13:36 created these billions of stars these thousands hundreds of light years away 1:13:41 and also made them in such a way that the light is reaching us now currently 1:13:47 um could he have not done that yeah where where he creates the star and he creates the beam of light to the Earth 1:13:54 at the same time"

That's about how I used to think of it up to becoming Geocentric.

And no, I also don't agree with God giving the spectacle of a Supernova occurring 10 000 years ago from a star that never existed, since the universe is only 7250 years old ...

But if the cosmic distance ladder is wrong, and the supernova is only 1 light day up, that takes care of that theological problem.

Some have argued my view of the angels dancing the "parallax" phenomenon into existence would introduce it in another way. I disagree. They would primarily be doing their dance to glorify God, but the knowledge that some astronomers could be deceived by this would not deter them or God, since first, they wouldn't have seen the "parallax" without a telescope and second, they wouldn't have excluded angelic movers without a highly prolonged drift into the false philosophy of materialism. So, the deception is really what these guys are asking for, it's probably part of the "strong delusion" of the end times.

1:14:19 The universe does not appear old, except if you add "secundum quid" namely according to the circumstance of to some people who are already deluding themselves before the observations, not by conspiracies as much as by incompetence.

"we 1:15:17 simply cannot infer from what we observe that the universe is is any certain age 1:15:23 we we effectively stop doing science"

Science and reason do not have the age of the univers as their primary of ultimate object.

Not being able to infer them other than from a history, like that in the Bible, is most definitely NOT stopping to do science.

Car engines will still burn petrol, probably even if it's outlawed, and light beams will still go straight, unless bent by gravitational lensing.

1:15:59 From strawman to strawman.

a) you attribute the Omphalus deception to Young Earth Creationists
b) you now attribute nominalism and "illogical God" to them.

Here is what CMI had to state:

Therefore, whether logic is an idea in God's mind, or is just an abstraction about reality that itself is not a metaphysically real object, there is no reason to think that logic somehow precedes God, or is independent of Him. God is the perfectly logical sole ultimate reality from which all other reality derives its existence.

Published: 29 January 2016, feedback answered by CMI’s Shaun Doyle.
https://creation.com/god-and-logic

"God shows us that reason is not trustworthy by creating 1:17:54 the appearances for instance of heliocentrism but um telling us in the Bible that it's not true"

There are no appearances of Heliocentrism. There are appearances that have been misconstrued as proving Heliocentrism, while only compatible with it, but the appearances are for Geocentrism.

It is actually the Heliocentrics which give scientists the kind of position that on your view Luther gave to the Bible. Trusting an authority without understanding the proofs, because that authority is sacred, not even better informed, just sacred.

"obviously the the young Earth creationist will try to save both but but what I'm saying is very very 1:18:23 dangerous for us ever to to say that that God 1:18:28 created the appearances of something but the reality is not there"

One one item we are obliged to it. Transubstantiation.

Obviously, the reason is "nil hoc veritatis verbo verius" ... let's recall the rest of the Bible is also the words of the Word.

But mainly, Young Earth Creationism is not saying it, you are attacking either a strawman, or what is just a faction among Young Earth Creationists, one not represented either by myself or the Big Three (IRC, AiG, CMI).

1:19:42 No, actually the Catholic Church is not saying God did not tell us that.

The Catholic Church has long tolerated this opinion, but the price has kept becoming greater for those who are informed about the science.

"on the 1:20:21 other hand it's not part of our faith to believe the Earth is a certain age"

Is liturgy part of our faith? Is lex orandi lex credendi?

Do you recite these words on Christmas?

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo.

Is "anno ... quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono" a date?

"there's always been this there's 1:20:45 always been this love of of faith and reason together for for centuries of of 1:20:52 the Catholic Church there's been this love of of faith and reason"

An excellent way why a Catholic should be definitely allowed to exercise his reason as enlightened by the faith, which is what Young Earth Creationism does.

"it possible that 1:23:20 maybe that there's a third explanation and that is uh that the speed of life has changed over 1:23:27 time that's what sometimes you hear the argument that well maybe the speed of light is has been different over time 1:23:33 and therefore um it used to be quicker and that beam of light that's from a 1:23:39 Galaxy a billion light years away um got that light got here sooner than a 1:23:45 billion light years um and I I say well I'm I'm open to to evidence for that 1:23:52 certainly you know it's just like if they can find evidence for that I'm I'm I'm fine with that I have no problem 1:23:57 with that and I like the fact okay we're talking Science Now provide the science as long as we agree that this is not a 1:24:03 religious question then you know go out there do do do the science and and prove prove with the science um and I'm I'm 1:24:11 willing to accept reasonable evidence for that but I don't I don't think 1:24:16 there's there's been any solid evidence"

This is known as the position of Setterfield, it is as mentioned not mine.

I don't set out to prove that the speed of light has changed, I state that astronomers have failed to prove either the Cosmic Distance ladder or even Heliocentrism.

But it seems you have been neglecting Young Earth Creationists after Barry Setterfield. He wrote a paper in 1987, which you are basically quoting, along with Trevor Norman.

"it's almost impossible to square it with with 1:25:08 the appearances"

Again, no.

Fr. Robinson is simply speaking from ignorance of the field he is pronouncing himself on.

For the grand finale, I obviously disagree the assessment that all who commented did so for lacking peace, or that Fr. Robinson absolutely needed to "provide" peace as if it were lacking.

At worst, pretending Young Earth Creationists lack peace is another strawman.

Same Counterpoint to Fr. Robinson, different highlight:

The Truth About Creation: What You Need to Know w/ Hugh Owen
Radio Immaculata | 9 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMiS1qlbVc

Hans Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl: 5:23 He said it somewhat longer in City of God books 12 to 17.

V e r y clearly.
Mudshod
@mudshod8432: Also,

“We should let ourselves be advised to take all the rest to begin with according to the strict literal sense and not to assume that it is being talked about figuratively, but that the things and events which are being related both exist and also stand figuratively for something else... Now, however, since there is no reason preventing us from taking these things first of all in a proper, literal sense, why should we not simply follow the authority of scripture in its narrative of things done, and first accept that the things really were done, and then only after that investigate what else they signify?”

– St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book VIII, ch. 7.
Hans Georg Lundahl: @mudshod8432 Amen!

SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism

[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

and B:

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

all three of which would among today's Protestants be used only by Fundamentalists. Day Age as mentioned by Watchtower Society, and Gap Theory by Kenneth Copeland. Compared to these two, I think Ken Ham shows lots more Catholic balance, notably, he refuses to tie himself down to either Calvinism or Arminianism.

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 ~~was the first ~~half~~ two thirds and past...~~ is nearing the end

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

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man)

SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers