Not Enough from Bergoglio's Side

Will Trad Caths FINALLY Support The Pope After His G Slur & Desire To Clean Up The Seminaries?
5-Minute Catholic Apologetics & Living | 20 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmzDOrQ1qC4

Before looking.
In the title, you didn't mention any:

• return to Young Earth Creationism (the historic position of Catholicism)
• or clarification that support of YEC is no act of either "rad trad schism" or Protestant heresy.

Tyler Brown

@tylerbrown4483

YEC is a wild take

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@tylerbrown4483 like that of literally all of tradition up to 1830?

+ even later coexisting only with gap theory and day-age theory up to 1919~1920?

+ never banned up to at least 1992, and if so only in the schismatic and by that fact also heretical church of Wojtyla?

Back when I converted, I was somewhat desensitised to Assisi, but in 1988, no one told me Wojtyla was going to actively promote old earth + evolution and by implication a L O N G stretch in the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11.

Tyler Brown

@hglundahl the tradition of the church has always viewed science as part of divine revelation, and reason through science as an acceptable lens for interpreting church teachings and scripture. So yeah, up until 150 years ago YEC was a totally normal take. The science wasn’t there to show that it’s not true, and the best interpretation of the scriptures at that time with the knowledge we had was that the earth was (at the time) like 5800 years old.

But now we know better. And we know better because it was revealed to us through science. And it’s okay to apply that reasoning to the tradition and the text and conclude that now God must want us to know better.

Vigorously clinging to verifiably false beliefs simply because “it’s what we always believed” in spite of new revelation is errant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ "the tradition of the church has always viewed science as part of divine revelation"

Apart from certain parts of science directly mentioned in the Bible, like Geocentrism in Romans one or lions tending to roar and devour in more than once place ... no.

"The science wasn’t there to show that it’s not true"

It's still not there to show it is not true.

"with the knowledge we had was that the earth was (at the time) like 5800 years old."

According to Vulgate chronology and you are decades off.

"But now we know better."

No. We. Do. Not.

"because it was revealed to us through science."

Revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle.

You are adoring Delphic Apollo. "Science" as an oracle.

"Vigorously clinging to verifiably false beliefs simply because “it’s what we always believed” in spite of new revelation is errant."

There is no new revelation between the death of St. John the Gospeller and the Second coming. There are clarifications about certain things, like possibly where Babel was (if I'm right) and certainly what the Mark of the Beast is and who is a credible candidate and has the gematria 666.

By the way, Apollo in the five cases of Classic Attic does add up to 2666, and the thousands can be ignored according to Hebrew convention. And Apollo was called Apollyon by Homer (the four cases of Apollyon adding up to 4666). I'd suggest you ditch any hint of belief in Delphic Apollo (and Apollo Medicus was actually a man, so, it certainly is, in that sense "the number of a man").