Other exchanges under same video

Archibald Sayce was no Church Father, Reverend Bandas was not Pope · Kevin Responded - On Something Else ... · Debate with Skabedab · Other exchanges under same video · Other on Kevin Davis's First Video with Rev. Rudolph Bandas

I

@DT-cz2sl

Young earth creationist here with out apologies. I wouldn't go so far as to say anybody that doesn't believe it is on their way to hell. But it does make sense to me that sin came and then death, not millions of years of death and then life. And all the dead things buried in the ground is explained perfectly by a world wide flood.

@hglundahl

That's just the beginning of it ....

II

@elladan426

“The Church and her Pastors are not opposed to true and solid science, whether human or divine, but that they embrace it, encourage it, and promote it with the fullest possible dedication.” - Pope Leo XIII

@nomorelies7755

If there was death of humanoids before the fall, God lied when He said Adam was made from the dust of the earth and was the first man and also designed the world to be full of disease and decay. Natural selection or survival of the fittest means the weakest links die out and it's a brutal process. God would have designed such weaknesses and disease from day one if this were the case. Thus God would have designed riverblindness from the beginning, designed animals doing horrible things to each other and no, not just for food, and other things going wrong.

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics

The question is whether evolution or the notion the age of the earth is billions of years, or the rejection of a world wide flood is solid science

@nomorelies7755

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics and there is actual evidence for the global flood. We have marine fossils at the top of Mount Everest.

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics

@nomorelies7755 I agree, but you will not find one scientist who believes or supports it, at least not mainstream. They would cite the same solid science for their view of evolution, age of the earth etc. none of it is solid science.

There is solid science to reject evolution and the false ages they propose

@nomorelies7755

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics Another reason is because there are no transitional fossils between us and the other species or transitional species around. The idea we descended from ape like beings is made up.

@nomorelies7755

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics I think another thing is that people who haven't been in the Novus ordo really don't don't understand how much putting science before faith shakes the faith up and makes them leave.

@elladan426

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics Steadfast faith in evolution is not science. Nor is steadfast faith in young earth. Science is the study of what is in the material world. Using arguments to justify pre-determined ideals is not science.

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics

@elladan426 I agree

@nomorelies7755

@elladan426 There is also question about God's original design and original sin. If God designed humanoids to die, get disease, and have the least fit keep dying over and over for a long time, then original sin can't be what causes death. In addition, it would show that death, disease, and decay were God's original design. Animals do many horrible things in nature (not speaking about eating). If they were originally designed to do such things, it calls into question how there was a fall if God had already made the world fallen.

@skabedab

@nomorelies7755 I am not too familiar with the question you raise, but I do not think that your reasoning is compelling. I might be wrong here, because I do not know by heart if Holy Scripture explicitly states that all death only came from original sin, or only the death of humans. If it explicitly says that all death comes from original sin, then what I'm about to lay out is of course void and I take it back. If not, I have a speculative explanation.

It could be, that all natural life dies, even in Gods original design. This is not in conflict with Gods goodness, as St. Thomas pointed out (Summa, First Part, Q19 A9). Man as a creation endowed with sanctifying grace and thus with not only natural but supernatural life, would not have to suffer death, if Adam and Eve remained in sanctifying grace.But through their sin they lost the gift of God and thus, reduced to only their natural life, had to die like the animals around them.

Again, I could be wrong here. If I am, I renounce. Would be nice if someone who is more learned in that matter could clarify.

@hglundahl

@elladan426 "Nor is steadfast faith in young earth."

It's not science. But it is history.

It is also at the very least by now fidei proxima.

@elladan426

@hglundahl Not true. The church has never taught Genesis as literal history. Days do not equate to 24 hours. Etc.

@hglundahl

What, @elladan426 ?

"The church has never taught Genesis as literal history."

You are LYING, or LIED TO. The Church has never NOT done it.

@hglundahl

Here is proof, @elladan426 .

This is from a Bible commentary by Father George Leo Haydock, the last words for Genesis 3:

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

This is very much taking Genesis as literal history, since it is asking how the historic information is to be traced. And it is typical of the preceding 1800 years of the Church too.

@elladan426

@hglundahl I just saw you spam the comments section with either misinformed or deliberately misleading rubbish. Sorry I engaged, it won't happen again.

@hglundahl

@elladan426 commenting with truth against the untruth spread by the video is not spamming.

You, @elladan426, are the misinformed person spreading rubbish.

III

@catholiccrusaderfilms3974

Genesis 1:3 There was evening and morning one day. Whatever length of time a day was, it had an evening and a morning. An evening and morning indicate a 24 hour day.

@kevingillikin5264

Without the sun?

@elladan426

St Augustine would disagree with that...

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics

The Sun and the Moon we set up to perpetuate the evening and morning of those days. God can have evening and morning without the Sun and Moon

@skabedab

St. Augustine in "City of God" interprets God creating light on the first day as God creating the angels. He points out that God only creates light, but then separates light from darkness. This is, according to St. Augustine the creation of angels and the fall of some of them.

@fr.timothygeckle1119

We are still in the 7th day of creation - the day in which God has "rested" from creation. This is a period of thousands of years. There is no strict interpretation as to what length each day consisted of.

I'm open to different interpretations - that God could created everything in 7 minutes, seven 24 hour periods, or 7 millennia or vast epochs. Any of these interpretations are consistent with what the Church has taught us, and each of these can show the majesty and omnipotence of God. As one priest I heard of put it - " God loved the world so much that He took his time creating it."

And to be clear, this doesn't mean that I believe in evolution. I do not and never have.

@elladan426

@fr.timothygeckle1119 Well said, Father!

@andreaengland9694

And what IS time? Isn't it relative to the observer's perspective? According to theories of relativity, we postulate planets on which 10 minutes equals many years elsewhere in the universe.

@catholiccrusaderfilms3974

@andreaengland9694 Time is not relative. You can have a kind of doppler effect with light but time itself doesn’t change.

@hglundahl

yeah ... @kevingillikin5264 ... without the sun.

Time spans of 24 hours are measured by, but do not come into existence from the Sun's daily movement around Earth.

Note very much, I am not flat earth, I am Geocentric, a position never condemned by the Church (unless you count Wojtyla in the 1990's as Magisterium).

The old agers have a very similar problem.

"13 point 8 billion years ago" ... "years" before Earth (according to them) orbitted the Sun, or before either of them existed?

THEY obviously mean that the time span is identic in length of time, even before the astronomic clock was there, but somehow Moses can't mean that?

@hglundahl

@fr.timothygeckle1119 "There is no strict interpretation as to what length each day consisted of."

Or how long the papacy can be vacant?

Like "perpetuos successores" doesn't preclude a 40 year vacancy according to interpreters AT the council, and now some Sedes (who are not accepting Pope Michael II and were not accepting his predecessor Pope Michael I) are saying there is NO limit to how long it can be ... not even 70 years, which none of the commenters mentioned.

"In the day of" dictions certainly do not extend to periods of 1000 of years. Not in English and not in Hebrew.

You can speak of a certain reign during the middle ages as "in the days of king so and so" (I took John Lackland as an example). But you cannot speak of the Middle Ages as "in the days of" any given person. If you want to speak of it in terms of "in the days of the Inquisition" or "the days of the Crusades" that's still shorter than the Middle Ages, the usage is not very good, and I don't think you find any Bible passage using "day" in the Bible for that long a period.

IV

@mariusz5682

Frankly I am astonished this author got an imprimatur - i will need to check this before i consider it serious. He sounds like a modernist who favours untested scientific hypothesis that undermine the plain reading the Sacred Scripture. Does imprimatur mean infallible? Anyone, please help ...

Fallacious reasoning at 1:54 time mark: "geology, paleontology, astronomy maintain ... cannot in one natural week". Creation wasn't a natural event! Much of scientific speculation is wrong and purposefully seeks anti-Christian explanations. But this author seems to go along with it ...

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
― Mark Twain

@elladan426

Imprimatur = "let it be printed". It is the express permission of the Church to print a book, and ensures no errors or heresies that will directly lead the Faithful astray. Is not 1-to-1 with Infallible.

That said, we lay people should never be astonished at what the true Church hierarchy has given an imprimatur...that is a very quick way to Pride and a "we know better" mentality. Modern Gallicanism.

@nomorelies7755

@elladan426 Previous councils have said things refuting macroevolution. I suppose we're supposed to ignore these councils now.

@elladan426 Also many people haven't spent enough time in the Novus Ordo churches. Macroevolution ends up breaking people's faith because they can't reconcile it with the tenants of original sin. It's taught as a default there. I know exactly where the slippery slope goes because again, I know the Novus Ordo inside out from experience.

No, it doesn't mean infallible.

@hglundahl

@elladan426 "and ensures no errors or heresies that will directly lead the Faithful astray."

Is supposed to ensure it.

Whether it actually does depends on the vigilance of the bishop.

In Paris, in preconciliar times, Teilhard de Chardin SJ had the oppportunity to say, with imprimatur, very bad stuff ... (Dictionnaire de théologie catholique)

Would you mind telling me what bishop gave Rev. Rudolph Bandas imprimatur? What was the conduct of that bishop, or if he died his successor, at Vatican II and beyond?

@elladan426

@hglundahl Wait... you're equating this book Kevin is reading with works from Teilhard de Chardin?? I'm afraid I'm not buying that straw man of an argument. 😉

@hglundahl

There is an equation @elladan426.

Imprimatur.

Preconciliar imprimatur.

And before you answer, Teilhard de Chardin must have been OK in that article, in a work that got one, unlike the works he published without one, no, he wasn't.

[Or got posthumously published without one - not claiming he was disobedient, whatever much his heresies may have made him a non-Jesuit, he still held to Jesuit obedience to the pope.]

V

@StAnthonyPaduaTradApologetics

The Bible may not be a “science textbook” but the account of Genesis (according to the Catechism of Trent) is sacred history.

Genesis 1 simply gives a historical account of what God did. There is no reason to take it otherwise; except if one believes the science is correct on the age of the earth. Just my thoughts

@skabedab

The Church has taught on this matter. The Bible Commission decided on the 30th of July, 1909:

"a) The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae venuti respondeant). no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122.

b) In regard to those facts, which touch the foundations of the Christian religion (quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingWlt), the literal historical sense is to be adhered to. Such facts are, inter alia, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time, and the special creation of humanity. D 2123.

c) It is not necessary to understand all individual words and sentences in the literal sense (sensu proprio). Passages which are variously interpreted by the Fathers and by theologians, may be interpreted according to one's own judgment with the reservation, however, that one submits one's judgment to the decision of the Church, and to the dictates of the Faith. D 2124 et seq.

d) As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific (proprietas scientifici sermonis). D 2127.

e) The word "day" need not be taken in the literal sense of a natural day of 24 hours, but can also be understood in the improper sense of a longer space of time. D 2128. Cf. the whole letter of the Secretary of the Bible Commission to Cardinal Suhard, dated 16th January, 1948 (D 3002,)." (Edit: Source is Dr. Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

In other words: Both explanations in a more liberal sense and a more literal sense are possible.

@hglundahl

A caveat @skabedab .

The ONLY thing where a more liberal sense is possible is the length of creation days.

No similar ruling, at least not for St. Pius X, for genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.

VI

@dandavis5718

I've long held that giving a layman a Bible and asking him to interpret books like Genesis or the Apocalypse is akin to giving a two year a gallon of gasoline and a book of matches.

@nomorelies7755

Trying to use prevailing scientific theories (not facts but theories) first and then apply the Bible later is appeasing the atheists. This idea was condemned in Pius X's syllabus of modern errors. The idea we descended from apes is theory not fact.

@hglundahl

With Genesis, you could not be further from the truth.

The Historia scholastica was translated to French and to Flemish rhyming couplets in the Middle Ages, so that this Biblical history would be accessible to laymen.

Before 1500 print in France will include an edition of the "Bible historiée" ...

If you think that Young Earth Creationism is heresy, or Protestantism, you are calling Popes like St. Pius V or St. Pius X heretics.

Sure, St. Pius X allowed the verdict of 1909, but it was a permission, very far from a complete recommendation. His catechism is solidly YEC. So are the other preconciliar / early post-conciliar catechisms I read.

VII

= the long debate with Skabedab, which also answers a point in V above by skabedab quoting a decision from 1911 on the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.