The Catholic Church, for centuries, has wrongly been accused of being "irrational" and going "contrary to science." Worn out canards about Galileo being persecuted, and clerics stifling scientific progress continue to abound. The truth is so often quite different from popular portrayals. The Catholic Church has been the very bastion of rationality. It is the Protestants and Modernists who exalt emotion over reason. The Vatican II sect is all about "feeling good about yourself," and Protestants like to have so-called "revival meetings" whipped up into a frenzy, so people can cry as they scream out to be "saved by faith alone."
The so-called New Atheists and secular humanists never fail to harp on how allegedly "superstitious" all things Christian are, and how religion (Christianity in particular) must be eradicated. This post will show how the Church is in perfect accord with science and is supremely rational. The scientific method is actually demonstrated in the Bible. Once, during a conversation with an atheist who considered faith "irrational," I was suddenly called to leave regarding an urgent matter. Rather than continue the debate regarding the Church and how dogmas are grounded in reason, I simply and suddenly told him he was entitled to his beliefs. "I have no beliefs, " was the (expected) reply. "Sure you do. You believe atheism is true, don't you?" There was only silence and a dumbfounded look as I left.
Defining "Science"
I have a love of science (and good knowledge of it), having been a science teacher for five years in New York City before going to law school. Before the 1800s, what we call science today was known as natural philosophy. The term literally means "the love of wisdom about nature." Therefore, science is a way of thinking about the natural world. When we were in school, we all learned that science is associated with making observations, looking for possible explanations (an hypothesis), and doing experiments to test your hypothesis. Arguably, one of the first scientists could be the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (for whose wisdom St. Thomas Aquinas had the greatest respect; calling him "The Philosopher"--always capitalized). Aristotle (born circa 384 B.C.) was famous for his observations of living things, and many consider him "The Father of Biology." (See, e.g. Armand Leroi, The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science (Bloomsbury Press, 2014).
Aristotle sometimes would reason from philosophical principles rather than from empirical observation, much to his detriment. One such example is that he believed that heavier objects would fall to the ground more quickly than lighter objects. Galileo devised an experiment proving Aristotle wrong. He rolled spheres down a ramp and discovered that the distance traveled was proportional only to the square of the time taken, and not at all to their masses. The experiment refuted the hypothesis that objects fall at different speeds if they are of different masses. This is how science works; it is a progressive human endeavor. Due to the dramatic increase in scientific technology where what was science fiction only fifty years ago is now commonplace scientific achievement, it has lead to the (dangerous) rise in what is called scientism, the belief that all knowledge comes to us exclusively through science. Since science is concerned with the measurable, visible world, it leads to the belief that talk of the supernatural is "untrue" and/or "unscientific."
The Scientific Method in the Bible
Being rational is extolled in the Bible. When Our Lord was asked what the greatest Commandments were, He said the first was to "...love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." (St. Mark 12:30; Emphasis mine). Notice the inclusion of "mind" in the list. It is an absurd contention that God is anti-reason. He gives us the highest-level of encouragement to use our minds to think about Him and the natural world in which we live. By such observations, we can come to know the existence of God by reason alone. Hence, Scripture tells us, "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God..." (Psalm 13:1; Emphasis mine).
The Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically defined:
The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. It was, however, pleasing to His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal laws of His will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.
Canon 1 on Revelation: If anyone saith that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
...And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated...
How different from the Protestants and Modernists! Modernists hold faith as "an encounter," or a "blind sense of religion which comes forth from the secret places of the subconscious, morally formed under an impulse of the heart.." (as condemned in the Anti-Modernist Oath). The Protestants denigrate faith as blind confidence in the Divine mercy. The enemies of the Church are also the real enemies of reason.
In the Book of job, God challenges Job regarding his knowledge of science:
Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said:
Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words?
Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof,
When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb:
When I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands?
I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors:
And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves.
(Job 38:1-11).
The answers involve observations of the natural world and the realization it points to the Supreme Being.
People involved in science (medical research in particular) are familiar with the "controlled trial." We are told by the American Medical Association, or the Food and Drug Administration, that drug X has been shown effective in trials to combat disease Y. The Book of Daniel, chapter one, records one of the first (perhaps even the very first) such trial. Put simply, Daniel and his friends were captured by the evil pagan King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, during a siege of Jerusalem around the sixth century B.C. The four young men were enrolled in what today's world would be considered a state University, all expenses paid, to be the king's advisors.
They were to be fed from the King's table. Daniel did not want to defile himself with food and drink that had in all likelihood been offered to pagan "gods." He asked the Babylonian in charge to give them vegetarian food instead. The man told Daniel that if the King saw the four young men deteriorate in health and fitness, he--the one in charge--would be executed. Daniel proposed that he test them in secret for ten days and make a judgement based upon what he saw; he wanted to give him scientific evidence. The official agreed, and after the trial, the four looked much healthier than the other students. He therefore kept the arrangement. Even today, there is substantial evidence that plant based diets are healthier than those with large amounts of meat.
The Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically defined:
The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, His invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. It was, however, pleasing to His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal laws of His will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.
Canon 1 on Revelation: If anyone saith that the one, true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
...And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated...
How different from the Protestants and Modernists! Modernists hold faith as "an encounter," or a "blind sense of religion which comes forth from the secret places of the subconscious, morally formed under an impulse of the heart.." (as condemned in the Anti-Modernist Oath). The Protestants denigrate faith as blind confidence in the Divine mercy. The enemies of the Church are also the real enemies of reason.
In the Book of job, God challenges Job regarding his knowledge of science:
Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said:
Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words?
Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof,
When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb:
When I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands?
I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors:
And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves.
(Job 38:1-11).
The answers involve observations of the natural world and the realization it points to the Supreme Being.
People involved in science (medical research in particular) are familiar with the "controlled trial." We are told by the American Medical Association, or the Food and Drug Administration, that drug X has been shown effective in trials to combat disease Y. The Book of Daniel, chapter one, records one of the first (perhaps even the very first) such trial. Put simply, Daniel and his friends were captured by the evil pagan King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, during a siege of Jerusalem around the sixth century B.C. The four young men were enrolled in what today's world would be considered a state University, all expenses paid, to be the king's advisors.
They were to be fed from the King's table. Daniel did not want to defile himself with food and drink that had in all likelihood been offered to pagan "gods." He asked the Babylonian in charge to give them vegetarian food instead. The man told Daniel that if the King saw the four young men deteriorate in health and fitness, he--the one in charge--would be executed. Daniel proposed that he test them in secret for ten days and make a judgement based upon what he saw; he wanted to give him scientific evidence. The official agreed, and after the trial, the four looked much healthier than the other students. He therefore kept the arrangement. Even today, there is substantial evidence that plant based diets are healthier than those with large amounts of meat.
The Universe, the Church, and the Big Bang
Many people would be surprised that one of the greatest discoveries in modern science comes to us from a Catholic priest in Belgium. Fr. Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), was ordained a priest in 1923. Absolutely brilliant, Fr. Lemaitre was also a mathematician and astronomer. He was the first to suggest (in 1927) that there had been an absolute beginning to the universe, including space and time itself. He based his theory on Einstein's theories, calling it The Primeval Atom Theory. Einstein said that his mathematics was sound, but his physics was horrible, and dismissed the theory. Astronomer Fred Hoyle referred to it as the "Big Bang Theory" while mocking Father in a 1949 radio broadcast.
At the time of Fr. Lemaitre's theory, the prevailing model in science was known as the "Steady State Theory," meaning that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place. There was no beginning to the universe, it always existed. On the theological front, those who didn't understand the Faith (as well as fundamentalist Protestants) objected to the idea, inherent in the Big Bang, that the universe was billions of years old based on their private interpretation of the Bible. The universe was only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and God made the world in six days of twenty-four hours each, and it must be true because "the Bible says so."
Fr. Lemaitre was never censured, warned, or condemned by Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII actually praised his work, but Father asked the pope to please not "mix" science with religion by linking his discovery to the truths of Faith. Fr. Lemaitre rightly considered science and Catholicism not to be in any conflict (since God is Creator of Nature and Founder of the Church) and he wanted science and faith to be considered two separate and different (but equally valid) ways of looking at the universe. (See Simon Singh, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, HarperCollins, [2010], p. 362). Even though it was exceptionally bold for a priest to so speak to the pope, the Supreme Pontiff nevertheless agreed to his request and gave him a papal blessing.
Fr. Lemaitre was never censured, warned, or condemned by Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius XII actually praised his work, but Father asked the pope to please not "mix" science with religion by linking his discovery to the truths of Faith. Fr. Lemaitre rightly considered science and Catholicism not to be in any conflict (since God is Creator of Nature and Founder of the Church) and he wanted science and faith to be considered two separate and different (but equally valid) ways of looking at the universe. (See Simon Singh, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, HarperCollins, [2010], p. 362). Even though it was exceptionally bold for a priest to so speak to the pope, the Supreme Pontiff nevertheless agreed to his request and gave him a papal blessing.
He was never censured for good cause: the Church does not teach that you must believe in a literal six days of creation. On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").
Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?"
Answer: In the negative.
Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?"
Answer: In the affirmative.
We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. The word "day" is an inexact translation of the word "yom", which was the word actually inspired by God and used by Moses. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.
In the scientific realm, the joke would soon be on Einstein and Hoyle. The scientific evidence of a beginning steadily increased, such as red-shift in the light coming from the galaxies, the expanding universe, and the discovery of the microwave background, have all contributed to our current understanding that the universe burst into existence at a single point.The Big Bang theory has near universal acceptance by scientists. Despite Fr. Lemaitre's reluctance to "mix" science and faith, he has given scientific validation to another form of a cosmological argument (such arguments were employed by the great Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas) as rational proof of the existence of God. The Communist countries refused to allow the Big Bang to be taught because they realized the theological implications set forth:
Major premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Minor premise: The universe began to exist (Big Bang)
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Moreover, this cause must be immaterial (there was no matter), timeless (there was no time), without boundaries (there was no space), and of enormous power. God has just been described.
Conclusion
The Church has unjustly been attacked as "irrational" and "unscientific," when She is actually the greatest proponent of reason and science. In matters of Faith, the Church does not promote ridiculous "emotionalism" like Modernists and Protestants. She sets forth Her doctrines with intellectual rigor. In science, the scientific method is demonstrated in the Bible itself, and a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory, which in accord with the dogmatic degrees of the Church, proves the existence of God by the use of reason. I might add that an Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel, is the Father of Genetics. We should be grateful that Our Lord has given us a Church that urges us to think upon His creation rationally. In so doing we refute unbelievers. In the words of St. Paul to the Romans, "For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity: so that they [i.e., unbelievers] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:20).
A couple of observations:
ReplyDelete(1)For the first 1900 years of Church history all Catholics believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Then in the 20th century they began to embrace certain "Big Bang" type theories. Thereupon, the Catholic world exploded in an orgy of heresies unlike the world has ever seen. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
(2)The Biblical Commission allowed us a choice between holding that the word "yom" means "a natural day" or "a certain period of time." Let's consider those two choices. Now the first one comports perfectly with the consensus interpretation of the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church, and was followed almost unanimously by the faithful. The second one, on the other hand, was held by not a single Father of the Church, not a single Doctor of the Church, and not a single saint of the Church (as far as I can see.) This being the case, why in the name of reason would any traditional Catholic seriously consider embracing the interpretation of "yom" as a certain period of time? Even if I thought that the Big Bangers made a prima facie compelling case (which I emphatically do not), I would reject it immediately as being contrary to the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors. On what possible grounds would any devote Catholic choose otherwise?
George,
DeleteYou are mistaken about the Church Fathers and what the early Church taught. Here is a sampling:
St Ireneaus
And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).
St. Clement of Alexandria
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).
It was actually Martin Luther and the Protestants who insisted on six days of 24 hours with no room for allegory.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteNeither example you provide is to the point. The first one has nothing to do with the days of creation. The second one only argues that the creation did not commence in time, which is true, because there was no time before the creation. Of the six days of creation, it says nothing.
As far as I know, St. Augustine was the only Father to argue against "yom" meaning an actual 24-hour day. That's because he thought that the entire creation took place instantaneously. No Father ever taught that "yom" meant "a certain period of time" in this context. The notion that "yom" meant a "certain period of time" is a novelty concocted by modern theologians who thought they knew better than the Fathers of the Church how to interpret Genesis. As for myself, I do not believe that I know better than the Church Fathers how to interpret Genesis. We shall one day see which point of view is more pleasing to God.
George,
DeleteYou are most correct that one may believe in a literal six days of Creation and a young Earth of 6,000 years old. The Church has not settled the issue, and this is one place where rules are not manufactured regarding Una Cum, Thuc Bishops, or anything else. You remain a good Catholic believing in a young Earth and literal interpretation. It’s not sinful or heretical.
To be clear, St Cyprian believed the seven days of Genesis to be of one thousand years each. “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).
St Augustine, did believe Creation was instantaneous, and also had this to say:
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
Finally, if the matter were settled to the point that there was no good reason to consider “yom” meaning anything but a 24 hour day, why would The Foe Of Modernism, Pope St Pius X, in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ, promulgate the freedom of Catholics to understand it differently? Certainly, he was no “liberal”!!
Of course I fully agree with you that God will ultimately tell us the truth in detail, at some point.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
There is a creation museum as well as an Ark Encounter (funny how they use the word encounter. A word the modernists love) in Northern Ky established by a protestant man named Ken Ham an Australian fundamentalist. They are both big facilities suppose to be educational and family fun places to visit. The Ark is a big replica of the actual Ark which was built by many Amish craftsman while the creation museum is about stories of Genesis starting with creation and ending around the Tower of Babel. While the places are neat they of course are heavily influenced with protestant ideas specifically with literal interpretation of the Bible along with a pro protestant timeline with a statue of Luther (Francis I would be delighted to see) in the creation museum. One theory they had come up with left me wondering what you thought. So the modern scientist believes the earth is billions of years old and that there was an ice age which caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. These people believe in a young earth and that the dinosaurs were included on the Ark and that afterwards went extinct because of man killing them off (At least that is how I understood it). Does the Church ever say anything about this or is it a mystery?
ReplyDeleteApart from that I just want to add to your article with an excerpt of Pope Pius IX's encyclical Qui Pluribus (On Faith and Reason) 1846
4. Each of you has noticed, venerable brothers, that a very bitter and fearsome war against the whole Catholic commonwealth is being stirred up by men bound together in a lawless alliance. These men do not preserve sound doctrine, but turn their hearing from the truth. They eagerly attempt to produce from their darkness all sorts of prodigious beliefs, and then to magnify them with all their strength, and to publish them and spread them among ordinary people. We shudder indeed and suffer bitter pain when We reflect on all their outlandish errors and their many harmful methods, plots and contrivances... They teach that the most holy mysteries of our religion are fictions of human invention, and that the teaching of the Catholic Church is opposed to the good and the prerogatives of human society. They are not even afraid to deny Christ Himself and God.
5. In order to easily mislead the people into making errors, deceiving particularly the imprudent and the inexperienced, they pretend that they alone know the ways to prosperity. They claim for themselves without hesitation the name of "philosophers." They feel as if philosophy, which is wholly concerned with the search for truth in nature, ought to reject those truths which God Himself, the supreme and merciful creator of nature, has deigned to make plain to men as a special gift. With these truths, mankind can gain true happiness and salvation. So, by means of an obviously ridiculous and extremely specious kind of argumentation, these enemies never stop invoking the power and excellence of human reason; they raise it up against the most holy faith of Christ, and they blather with great foolhardiness that this faith is opposed to human reason.
6. Without doubt, nothing more insane than such a doctrine, nothing more impious or more opposed to reason itself could be devised. For although faith is above reason, no real disagreement or opposition can ever be found between them; this is because both of them come from the same greatest source of unchanging and eternal truth, God.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteThank you for the good points you add. As for Ken Ham, I consider him an embarrassment. He will force square pegs into round holes; that is, forcing the facts to fit his preconceived Protestant ideas. I’ve heard him once use legends of dragons as “proof” of dinosaurs (!)
existing with people.
Dinosaurs and people coexist only in movies , cartoons, and in Ken Ham’s Park. The last dinosaurs – other than birds – died out dramatically about 65 million years ago, while the fossils of our earliest human ancestors are only about 6 million years old. That’s not to say they were human but humanoid. Pope Pius XII allowed for the belief that the BODIES of our First Parents could have evolved, but in such a sense that their bodies were not generated by brute beasts.
The Church never had the Chance to settle such questions with the advent of the Great Apostasy m. In my opinion, there is no rational evidence of human and dinosaurs co-existing, except for some creatures alive with the dinosaurs which didn’t die out, such as bitds, alligators m, and cockroaches
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thank you for your input. I hope you weren't thinking that I agreed with Mr. Ham. He is protestant and for me that is enough said. I was just wondering about his theory regarding the dinosaurs and people. Since you brought up that dinosaurs died out 65 million yrs ago I had another question. Along with you I have a big problem with some of the Dimond brothers teachings (because they're heretical) but in their creation and miracles video, skip to 10:52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtpI-eQb6kc they talk about a young earth based on some examples in science they think proves it so. Many trads believe in a young earth, geocentrism (hyped up by Robert Sungenis), flat earth (somehow becoming a hot topic), whether man really did go to the moon etc. I'm not saying that I agree with any of them 100% (especially the flat earth nonsense) but they do have some reasonable arguments. Surely being a science teacher at one point you've had to discuss these things. Is it wrong to believe in a young earth or geocentrism?
DeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteA couple of distinctions need to be made. It is NOT wrong to believe in geocentrism or a young Earth, if by wrong you mean heretical or sinful. It’s like believing Elvis is still alive—-not a sin or heretical—even if strange and unsupported.
As far as the Dimond video, it belies a scientific illiteracy. I honestly don’t know why some Traditionalists allow these topics (usually pushed by heretics like Dimonds or Protestants) to be discussed as if they were matters of Faith or morals. Nor do I believe in spending lots of time on them when our time could be much better spent. (This is not a criticism of you Lee. I can understand how the Dimond stuff can make people wonder).
I’m going to share a link regarding this matter which clearly demonstrates an Old Earth consistent with Christianity. It if full of excellent citations. I will reproduce here the answer to the “dust on the moon” argument used in the video. You may follow the link and read the rest at your leisure.
Dust on the Moon
This was formerly a widely-used young-Earth claim, but it has now been discredited. Nonetheless, it is still sometimes repeated in young-Earth circles. One of the first estimates of dust expected on the Moon was made in 1960 by Hans Pettersson. Pettersson estimated the influx of space dust by standing on top of a mountain with a device used to measure smog levels. By assuming (incorrectly) that all of the nickel dust he detected came directly from outer space, Pettersson arrived at a very large estimate of the amount of space dust falling on the Earth (and the Moon). When the Apollo landers found that the amount of dust on the Moon was much less than suggested by Pettersson's measurements, some young-Earth advocates claimed this proved that the Moon was young. Not long after Pettersson, however, the influx of space dust was measured by satellites. It has been measured several different ways now, and is known to be almost 1,000 times smaller than Pettersson thought. In fact, there is no discrepency whatsoever between the influx of space dust and the amount of dust found on the Moon's surface. Nowadays, most of the more responsible young-Earth advocates have ceased to use this claim. For example, Snelling and Rush (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v.7, pp.2-42 (1993)) not only explain why the moon-dust argument is untenable, they also refute the commonly-repeated myth that Apollo scientists were afraid that their landers would sink into a deep dust layer.
(See http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/OEC-refutes-YEC.htm#shrinking)
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thanks for the link. When you said "Nor do I believe in spending lots of time on them when our time could be much better spent." I would agree but the link you sent me would require me lots of time to read his point of view. I haven't read all of it yet but I will comment on a couple of things from the website.
DeleteOn his section regarding Life of Earth he says... Age of the Oldest Living Part of the Biosphere [DB 1506 (6); OAB 45] The fact that the oldest known living organism is about 5,000 years old does not prove anything about the age of the Earth. It only proves that we don't know of any organisms that are able to live longer than 5,000 years."
My comment: It doesn't necessarily prove that the earth is millions or billions of years old either. In fact it only proves that Old earth believers aren't certain based on what they do know.
Age of Human Civilizations [DB 1506 (7); OAB 3] It is true that human civilization is recent, although its age is closer to 10,000-15,000 years than to 4,000. Everyone, except the young-Earth proponents themselves, agrees that human civilization is much younger than the Earth itself, thus the age of human civilization does not affect the age of the Earth unless you assume a young-Earth view in the first place. That, of course, would be circular reasoning.
My comment: If Adam and Eve were the first human beings created by God and this man admits that the oldest human civilization is within 10,000-15,000 yrs. ago, does that mean when God created the heavens and the earth on the first day that by the sixth day when he created man in His own image that the space of time from the first day and the sixth day was millions or billions of years apart is circular reasoning? To me that sounds a little like those who say Elvis is still alive.
I wouldn't say the geocentric belief is strange nor the heliocentric model. Tycho Brahe believed in the Geocentric model and had a sophisticated model for it. Copernicus had an interesting model as well. Either everything revolves around the Earth or it revolves around the Sun in the solar system. I really don't care one way or another, but tend to believe the geocentric version because the public school system wants everybody to believe what they want everybody to believe and if you don't agree with their system your considered strange, fake, or something else when it's the public school system that is condemned by the Church. link here https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/category/public-schools/
Lee
Lee,
DeleteI agree with your basic contention in the last paragraph. Steve Speray and I have exchanged emails on many occasions. I consider him a friend and highly recommend his blog!
One point: on human civilization the author means to say that human civilization is younger than the age of the Earth. Even young-Earth proponents admit this point. However, they take it a step further and argue that if people appeared about 10,000 or so years ago, then the Earth must have been created just before that point. However, that begs the question as to whether the Earth was created just prior to humanity or a long time prior!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the other creationist outfits are run by heretics, but that does not make the facts they present invalid. The Novus Ordos have their own creationist institute, the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation: http://kolbecenter.org/ Their research is solid. I wish true Catholics scientists could claim credit for this sort of research.
DeleteThe soft tissue found in supposedly eons-dead creatures and the carbon-dating results of the tissue are conclusive proof that the creatures are nowhere near as old as claimed: https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/world/dinosaur-rib-195-million-year-old-collagen-history/index.html
And the soft tissue from supposedly half-a-billion-year-old worms: http://www.icr.org/article/still-soft-after-551-million-years
Some of the creationist groups have performed carbon-14 tests on the dinosaur and found it to be 22,000 to 39,000 years old:
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRji-jeXrec
I love it when Jack Horner says that he doesn’t want to test the soft tissue for carbon 14 because it will give the creationists traction. Yep.
Twenty-two thousand years is still older than the ~6,000 years (or ~4,000 since the flood) claimed by the Bible but is much younger than the tens to hundreds of millions of years claimed by the evolutionists. However, if the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the atmosphere was different in the past, the tissue could be as young as 4,000 years old:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
Additionally, researchers may even have recovered DNA from a supposedly 70 million-year-old Mosasaur, since they found a primary DNA constituent, phosphate, in the bone: https://www.icr.org/article/6084/
DNA supposedly has a half-life of 521 years, with all of it being gone after 6.8 million years: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-long-can-dna-last-million-years-maybe-more/#.XS5lw0d7kkI
I do not believe that the earth and the universe are billions of years old or that mankind evolved through evolution. If God did not create the world in seven actual 24-hour days, then He created it in a short time period, not over billions of years.
Scripture says that death entered into the world through the sin of the first man, Adam. It is theologically impossible that creatures could have been suffering and dying for hundreds of millions of years before man came into being. The whole purpose of the material world is to be a realm for man, so there is no point in God's creating the universe billions of years prior to creating man.
If science strongly corroborated scripture, it would reinforce the faith of even weak believers. Satan does not want that, so he directs his agents such as Jack Horner to concoct and maintain theories in such contradiction to the Bible that unbelievers will immediately dismiss the Bible. The scientific method requires that one make observations, formulate hypotheses based on the observations, and then test the hypotheses. What these secular “scientists” such as Horner are doing is the opposite of the scientific method. They know the truth, and they are willfully ignoring, suppressing, or spinning away the evidence that contradicts their atheistic theories.
Young Earther,
DeleteI’m not here to persuade anyone that they must believe the Earth is old. It is neither sin nor heresy to believe either an old or young Earth.
One point: when the Bible speaks of death entering the world, the theologians speak exclusively of humans. There’s no reason to think it applies to plants and animals. Would our First Parents eat? If so, plants and/or animals would die.
—-Introibo
Scripture actually says that our parents ate fruit prior to the fall. Eating fruit doesn't harm the plant. After the fall God required Adam to eat the herbs of the earth. Tradition has it that man did not eat animals until Cain slew Abel. Cain then had to eat animals because the earth would not produce for him as a punishment for his sin.
DeletePlease cite for me the Chapter and verse about fruits.
Delete—-Introibo
[Before the fall]
DeleteGenesis Chapter 1:29-30: And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Genesis Chapter 2:16-17: And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
Genesis Chapter 3:2-3: And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.
[After the fall]
Genesis Chapter 3:18-19: Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
Young Earther,
DeleteThank you for the citations. According to Theologian Haydock, as to Gen. 1:29-30
God does not give express leave to eat flesh meat, which He did after the deluge. It is SUPPOSED that the more religious part of mankind abstained from it and from wine (See Comprehensive Commentary on the Old Testament, 1859, pg. 15).
There is nothing in the passage to suggest God forbade eating plants, as interpreted by Her Theologians. That is an interpretation that could be true, but may not. Death for living things other than people is not taught. It is not contrary to faith (you may believe it), but it is not OF FAITH either (you may not believe it)
—-Introibo
Haydock says man did not eat meat until after the flood. They had to cause there was no vegetation.
DeleteYoung Earther,
DeleteI also tend to believe dino's never existed. What is your take on this? Also, I am not a flat earther either. https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/dinosaurs-never-existed/
By using the concept of reason, people lived hundreds of years in the early days. You admit plant is better then animal food.
DeleteI think genes were so pure by only a veggie diet that people could live hundreds of years.
But then the flood and people started eating meat cause they had too. According to Haydock meat was first introduced after the flood. Because there was no vegetation. Because of this diet of meat and fat, it would have reduced the time of life drastically after the flood. Then the meat eating gene has been passed down ever since and we are only living 75 years on average.
@Smocko,
DeleteYes, see my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-age-old-problem.html?m=1
—-Introibo
The annotations to the ORIGINAL Douay Old Testament (not the Protestant-influenced Haydock version) for Genesis Chapter 9:3 state that “St. Justinus Martyr, St. Chrysostom, and other ancient Doctors prove, that flesh was lawful to be eaten before the flood: but not being necessary, because men were stronger, and other things also of more force, the better sort of which were of Seths race abstained from it. But after the flood flesh being more necessary, God altereth that custom of abstinence, with this limitation and commandment, that they shall not eat blood.
DeleteWe also have the imprimatured private revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich:
“Flesh meat was not eaten before Abel’s death….God told him [Cain] that he should be cursed upon the earth, that it should bring forth no fruit for him, and that he should forthwith flee from the land in which he then dwelt…. God pointed out to Cain a region to which he should flee. And because Cain said: "Then, wilt Thou let me starve?"—(the earth was for him accursed)—God answered no, that he should eat the flesh of animals. He told him likewise that a nation would arise from him, and that good also would come from him. Before this men ate no flesh.”
http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_01/ACE_1_0021_out.html
(Although I know you will say that private revelations do not have to be believed.)
Eric Dubay is a disinfo agent and a liar for sure. He claims that dinosaur bones weren’t found until the 1800s. A one minute internet search shows that the ancient Romans had the bones of dinosaurs and/or ancient giant creatures: https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2016/06/29/roman-emperors-monster-bones-and-the-early-history-of-fossil-hunting/#5858a7e67f05 I don’t want to waste another minute of my time on him.
Young Earther,
DeleteThank you for the citation to earlier Douay Commentary. I need to look into that one. You are correct that private revelations (even those approved), need not be believed.
—-Introibo
Why would private revelations that are approved need not be believed? The Sacred Heart devotions, The Rosary, Brown Scapular, etc. are approved private revelations. Are you talking about some other ones or did you mean something else?
DeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteDevotions are sometimes intimately connected with apparitions, but are not the same. The devotion may be practiced, but is not mandated. Visions and apparitions which are approved (e.g., Our Lady Of Fatima) are not required to be believed as they are not part of the Deposit of Revelation, yet the devotion of the First Five Saturday’s is laudatory and Catholic. It was approved by the Church so you may practice it (I do), even if you don’t believe in the apparition.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
We can know with certitude that the scientific data will conform to Holy Scripture. Whether the issue is creation or geocentrism. What is not certain at all is the scientific communities interpretation of their own data. They have an agenda to displace God and install Man on the throne of knowledge. But in the end, we will all see how science and theology are in total agreement. The authors of Genesis were inspired by God to write what they wrote. When all truth is revealed, it will glorify God even more to see how both science and theology are in perfect accord.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteVery true!
—-Introibo
I think Scientific Opinion (what passes for it these days, anyhow) is getting more and more embarrassed about the proofs of Divine action in the Universe. Now that advanced tools like carbon dating, computer scanning and much more, have given the world solid evidence of the miracles of Creation and the genuineness of items such as the Holy Shroud, they speak on these things with a chuckle, or deafening silence. I have always found it funny that scientists who are naturalistic in outlook keep pushing back the time of the world's (naturally coming about from primordial ooze, of course) origins. First they posited it was a few hundred thousand years ago; now they say it is probably billions, with no end to constant revision of it. Not very Scientific of them!
ReplyDeleteJannie,
DeleteYou are correct that the atheists who subscribe to SCIENTISM are indeed scrambling to defend their untenable position. What I find ironic is that they talk about a Supreme Being as a “God of the Gaps.” In others words, when people could not describe what caused earthquakes, to fill the gap of knowledge, they ascribed Divine Action—God’s wrath, etc.
Today these atheists employ “science of the gaps.” If we cannot explain the beginning of the universe, we will not follow the evidence where it leads. Instead, there MUST BE A NATURALISTIC CAUSE we just haven’t been able to pinpoint yet!!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDelete"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use" - Galileo
I don't know much about heliocentric and geocentric theories, but upon perusal of the Internet I saw where the Masonic John Salza is a flat earther and geocentrist. That was enough for me to know which eggs I place in which basket!!
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong
Joann,
DeleteSalza wants a false pope to be recognized, so why not unsubstantiated scientific ideas as well? Thank you for the information!!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Joann, I would not be too quick to condemn geocentrism. The fact is science cannot prove that the earth actually moves. All motion is relative.
DeleteTom,
DeleteLike I stated above, I really don't know anything about heliocentric and geocentric theories. However, when I see person's such as Masonic John Salza,Robert Stunegis, et al., believing that the earth is flat, believing in way out there conspiracy theories, as well as accepting Francis the fake as Pope, I tend to lean in the opposite direction. However, my Moto is "the truth is in the middle".
Actually Sungenis wrote a lengthy book on why the Earth is not Flat. Unfortunately he is still in the Novus Ordo and doesn't appear to want to come out.
DeleteLee
Lee,
DeleteSungenis is an intelligent man. Someone told me the reason that holds him back from being a Sedevacantist is that he received an annulment from the V2 sect. If he denies Francis, that has serious consequences for his putative marriage.
—-Introibo
I did not know that. Yes he is an intelligent man and I hope one day he will come around despite his unfortunate situation.
DeleteLee
Joann, you should do some basic research about Robert Sungenis and his work before slandering him as a flat earther. At least spell his name correctly. Sungenis not only rejects flat earth, he claims it is a PSYOP aimed at his work. See his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QBOwvP5XiM
DeleteYoung Earther,
DeleteI did further research upon reading your comment and Robert Sungenis wrote a book entitled "Flat Earth-Flat Wrong. He does indeed reject Flat Earth. My mistake. I do, however, take exceptions to various conspiracy theories he has expounded. Such as Holocaust denier, Moon landing denier, etc., see below link:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/
Robert-Sungenis
I really know very little regarding heliocentric vs geocentric and should probably not even be commenting on the subject. Also, I have no real interest in the subject or desire to learn much about it. It is just not my "cup of tea".
This query is off topic. I am constantly being bombarded by people telling me "everything happens for a reason". I have a difficult time believing "everything happens for a reason". Tell that to a woman who has
ReplyDeletebeen raped, or a child that has been molested and it sounds sick. I always thought that was a Protestant belief, but lately I have come across Trads spouting "everything happens for a reason". Is this phraseology Catholic??
Thanks.
Joann,
DeleteTaken in its proper context, it is Catholic. God PERMITS things to take place, He doesn’t positively Will it to happen. God permits murder and rape, for example, because it is a consequence of free will. God doesn’t want or will it to happen, but He must permit such actions or eliminate free will. Can God bring good out of evil? Yes, seeing the evil that He knows will occur, He can use it to help the largest number of people possible.
Suppose someone abuses their free will and drives drunk. They are in an accident and lose their legs. That person may now be more open to the grace of God. God gives him special graces and he converts and dies in the state of grace, saving his soul. God has brought good out of evil. God controls the universe and holds it in existence. In this way God ensures things work out the best for the largest amount of people. In this sense, “everything happens for a reason.”
—-Introibo
The ills of society are a direct result of Original Sin. Creation was in perfect harmony before the Fall.
DeleteIntroibo,
DeleteMy least favorite things for people to say is "Everything Happens for a Reason" and when a loved one dies for people to say is "He/She is better off".
In any event, I respectfully disagree with you regarding "Everything Happens for a Reason". If God PERMITS bad things to happen, then that negates free will and smacks of predestination. God GAVE us free will. He didn't give it to us with a stipulation that He will PERMIT it. Man and woman are totally 100% free moral agents and responsible for their free will choices and actions. When people try to find rationale reasons for bad things happening for a reason, a cascade of negativity falls upon them and instead of growing and becoming overcomers, many seem to stagnate and growth is precluded. To grow through terrible emotional pain and evil events perpetrated on us and go forward is the only rationale way. Trying to find reasons for everything will hold one down and a sure fire way to prevent growth. The best way out is through the fire and stop turning around looking for reasons that may not even exist. My 2 cents.
Joann,
DeleteWe actually are in basic agreement. For God to permit something means he doesn’t intervene to stop it. To do so would negate free will. It is in this sense God permits evil. God’s permissive will should not be an excuse not to learn, grow and overcome the evil that took place! Trying to find a reason is counterproductive. As I say to myself, “God knows better than me.” Then I do what I can to improve.
—-Introibo
JoAnn,
DeleteI understand what you mean. I hear a lot of "it was meant to be" or something to the effect of what you said. It's annoying because it's the way they say it almost like their is no compassion or like they don't care so they just give a general answer. Introibo explains himself nicely I think. Anyways my three cents.
Lee
Introibo,
DeleteSaying that God's permissive will permits evil is like blaming God when bad or evil things happen. When evil happens it is 100% the perpetrators fault, nothing to do with God permitting it.
James 1-17: "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration".
Introibo,
DeleteI don't mean to be redundant, but I will NOT blame God for any bad or evil thing that happens, permissive will or no permissive will. The fault for the bad or evil things that happens lay either with me and choices I have made, or with the perpetrators. Question: Is God's permissive will a matter of Church doctrine? Thanks!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteYes. According to Theologian Ott, “...it is impossible for any event to happen which is not foreseen and desired—OR AT LEAST PERMITTED—- in the Divine world-plan.” (See “Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma,” [1954], pg. 91; Emphasis mine)
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI can understand how all events are foreseen, but not permitted. To permit events to happen sounds like predestination, or that events are preordained to happen. If that is so, it then leads one to blame God for allowing the event to happen, or not stopping it. Thus, the phraseology of "Everything Happens for a Reason" comes into play, which I cannot wrap my head around.
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteIf you believe in free will, as the Church teaches, that means we can obey or disobey God. We also know God is omnipotent. Now comes the predicament: God can stop us only at the expense of having no free will. He wants us to be free so He will not interfere. That doesn’t make Him the cause of evil. The people who choose wrong are to blame.
Atheists have tried to show God cannot exist as follows:
1. If God is all powerful He would stop evil
2. If God is all good He would want to stop evil
3. Yet evil exists
4. Therefore, God is either not Good or not all powerful
5. The Christian God does not exist
The problem with the argument is in the first premise.. God has not stopped evil YET.
God wants us to be free, and once all the people He has chosen to create have decided for or against Him, there will be His Second Coming and the eternal defeat of evil.
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI am really trying to understand God's permissive will. I have come to the conclusion that it is basically a matter of semantics for me. If I substitute the word ALLOWS for PERMITS, I can seem to grasp the meaning of God's permissive will. Does this make any sense?? Thanks for being patient with me!! I am not intentionally being thick regarding this issue, I just am!! For some reason, it is very difficult for me to understand.
JoAnn
⚓⚓⚓
Joann,
DeleteIf you substitute “allows” for “permits” that’s perfectly fine and it expresses the teaching of the Church!
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThe Vatican II Sect claims that God wills "diversity of religions". Would God willing "diversity of religions", therefore, fall under God's permissive will?
@anon8:13
DeleteThat’s how Bergoglio tried to get out of his heretical statement. Yes, God permits the evil of heresy and false sects. However, if you read what he said, Bergoglio put false sects in the same context as race and gender. God positively willed male and female as well as different colored people. Why would he list false sects (permissive will) along with things God positively wills?
—-Introibo
See below link.
DeleteIt seems Bergoglio was forced by some "Bishops" to walk back his statement on diversity of religions being positively willed by God to be being of God's permissive will.
Bergoglio will try as best he can to get away with the most heretical and outrageous statements he can to further confuse and lead people further from the truth.
This is the link that I referred that goes with the above post.
Deletehttps://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/03/08/bishop-schneider-pope-clarified-statement-on-diversity-of-religions/
Thank you for the information, Joann!
Delete—-Introibo
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Aristotle sometimes would reason from philosophical principles rather than from empirical observation, much to his detriment."
What's your opinion on things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which have never been observed?
Ryan,
DeleteEmpirical observation need not be direct. We can “see” things by making observations of what is perceptible and postulating the existence of certain things via mathematical equations which would explain, describe and predict what happens if the postulated entity exists. Aristotle was using pure principles divorced from any observation in certain cases.
—-Introibo
I for one am skeptical as they appear to be things which have been invented in order to justify the mathematical formulations necessary for "scientism's" universal origin story. It seems to me the more we learn about the universe the more absurd the theories will become in order to deny a creator and master.
DeleteRyan,
DeleteIt might be so! Science used to believe Newton’s Laws Of Motion were “the last word”—then came a guy named Einstein! It is a human endeavor always subject to change.
—-Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
1. What about the phrase "morning and evening" that is used for the days? How can any period of time other than a [24 hour] day have a morning and evening?
2. The Roman Martyrology for 24 Dec states "In the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created Heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine; ... Jesus Christ, Eternal God, and Son of the Eternal Father, ... is born in Bethlehem of Juda, ..." Doesn't that make the earth 7218 years old now?
Thank you for your very helpful blog.
Kenneth,
Delete1. Moses was writing in a way so that the ancients could relate. It could be metaphorical as when Christ said, “I am the Door.” That’s obviously metaphorical yet relates an absolute truth. The terms morning and evening could simply mean parts of a specific yom or time period.
2. This age of the world, according to the tradition of the Catholic Church, does not in any way conflict with modern science. Scientific evidence is strong that the the universe itself is about 13.8 billion years old. From the perspective of the ancients, however, God created the heavens and the earth within days of the special creation of Adam and Eve. It is most likely that the beginning of this calendar corresponds with the actual completion of God's work of the creation of the heavens and the earth in so far as they were finally prepared in readiness as the earthly paradise for our First Parents complete with all animals, etc.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
We must all remember that the Church is the sole interpreter of Holy Scripture. We are not free to second guess what is literal and what is metaphoric. Some examples of metaphors are quite obvious while others are less so. As far as I know about true Catholic teaching, the faithful are not bound to a literal interpretation of Genesis. What is dogmatic is that God created the natural world ex nihilo, all mankind has a common ancestor in Adam and Eve, and our first parents are responsible for Original Sin.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteYou are basically correct.
—-Introibo
Some historians say that the crisis in the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the Second Vatican Council, but everything with the rising prosperity and education rate we have known since the 1960s. Their argument goes as follows: people who can lead a good life have less need for a religion. In addition they say that highly educated people are much less inclined to believe in a God than lower educated people. What is your opinion on all of this, Introibo
ReplyDelete@anon7:32
DeleteThe advances made in science have led many to believe God is an “outdated concept.” The only way someone can “live a good life” without God, presupposes no objective moral duties and values, and redefines the meaning of good and evil.
Vatican II gave us a sect that does nothing to show people the reasonableness of the Catholic Faith and how objective moral values and duties must depend on God. They are caught up in feelings and moral relativism.
Vatican II is the cause of our ills. The position about which you asked never would have gotten where it did had the Catholic Church not been driven underground.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
P.S. There are plenty of highly educated people who have strong faith in God. I think those with higher education make more money and get wrapped up in the things of this world. The problem is more moral than intellectual.
Delete—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThe Human Potential Movement of the 1960's was predicated upon by William James' Self-Actualization and Abraham Maslow. The Human Potential Movement (HPM) was a counter-culture rebellion against mainstream psychology and religion. It later gave way in the 1970's to look outside Western culture for deeper solutions. Eastern mysticism and meditation offered a more effective methodology than Christianity. The God of the HPM is the SELF.
The New Age movement is the direct descendant of the HPM. Along with neo-paganism and shamanism. The promotion of self-love and self-awareness was sought in place of God. The result was a culture of narcissists who lacked consciences.
The legacy of the HPM is self-improvement workshops, books and in the proliferation of the 12 Step groups.
The atheistic psychologists and their HPM has so infected society and the Church that one doesn't need to seek it out as it has became apart of societial norms in the culture and "Church".
How much these atheistic psychologists influenced Vatican II and for years leading up to the council only God knows. The Devil went to Vatican II, felt right at home and stayed.
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/sensitivity-movement-desensitized-catholics-evil
Joann,
DeleteYou have rightly pointed out yet another danger used on the Vatican II sect. I might do a post on HPM.
Thank you so the information!
—-Introibo
"In 1909, the PBC’s answers to several questions about Genesis 1-3 established certain truths unequivocally.
ReplyDeleteIts reply to Question I established that the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis cannot be called into question."
You must read:
http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
You must look more carefully. The Kolbe Center is the Vatican II sect.
DeleteAnswer to Question #2: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
Now this must take into consideration Questions 5, 6, and 7:
V: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
#5: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
#6 Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
#7 As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
---Introibo
In the first place, this statement of Humani Generis is not deduced.
ReplyDeleteBut otherwise, that has been the great omission of clarity of Pius XII that allowed the evolutionary vision. Precisely that phrase has used John Paul II to encourage evolutionism.
The Lateran Council dogmatically defines the creation of the body and soul of the first man.
As for his statement, if the human body of the first man had evolved, that would be imperfection in the creation of man.
Pius XII only allowed research on evolution, which is somewhat different.
No, introibo you have to be more careful, pay attention to the answer I highlight.
ReplyDeleteWhat is required is the unanimity of thinking of the Fathers, which is obvious, the rest remains.
"In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood IN DIFFERENTE MANNERS WIHTOUT PROPOSING ANYTING CERTAIN AND DEFINITE...
5: Must EACH AND EVERY WORD AND PHRASE occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense..."
For the rest, Kolbe Center starts from the traditional teaching of the Church, and its procedure is very formal and elaborate.
The Church has already pronounced dogmatically on creation, in the IV Lateran Council:
"God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."
"For 600 years, according to the foremost Catholic Doctors and commentators on this dogmatic decree, the words “at once from the beginning” signified that God created all of the different kinds of corporeal creatures and angels “simul” (“at once”). This could be reconciled with the six days of creation (the view of the overwhelming majority of the Fathers) or with the instantaneous creation envisioned by St. Augustine—but it could not be reconciled with a longer creation period. Among the commentators who taught that Lateran IV had defined the relative simultaneity of the creation of all things, perhaps the most authoritative was St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619), Doctor of the Church. In his commentary on Genesis, St. Lawrence wrote:"
the Holy Roman Church determined in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels along with the creatures of the world were at once created ex nihilo from the beginning of time.
This precise meaning of the words of Lateran IV was also explained by the most authoritative catechism in the history of the Catholic Church—the Roman Catechism—which taught that God created ALL things by his Fiat instantaneously “in the beginning” without any natural process:
The Divinity created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created.
According to the Roman Catechism, “Creator of heaven and earth” in the Creed also referred to the creation of all of the different kinds of living things. It states:
The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures (Catechism of Trent).
In 1880, in an encyclical on Holy Marriage, Pope Leo XIII wrote to the Bishops as follows:
ReplyDelete"What is the true origin of marriage? That, Venerable Brethren, is a matter of common knowledge. For although the revilers of the Christian faith shrink from acknowledging the Church’s permanent doctrine on this matter, and persist in their long-standing efforts to erase the history of all nations and all ages, they have nonetheless been unable to extinguish, or even to weaken, the strength and light of the truth. We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted. And so that this union of man and woman might correspond more aptly to the most wise counsels of God, it has manifested from that time onward, deeply impressed or engraved, as it were, within itself, two preeminent and most noble properties: unity and perpetuity."
What, then, was the opinion of the Church as always about Creation? It is clear in the way of thinking and expressing Leon XIII. This opinion of the Church cannot change.
Personally I think that the awkward expression of Pius XII in Humani Generis (this expression of Pius XII in an encyclical cannot change the meaning of what was said in the Lateran Council, and after that) facilitated the belief in evolution. I also think that the evolutionary pressure of the time could do a lot about it. Only three years after Humani Generis was the fraud of the Piltdown man discovered. Also, in the twenties in the faculties of theology the geological column and the possibility of the Earth's long age were taught, something very influenced by the modernist and evolutionary current.
It is also the time when Annibale Bugnini prepared the change of the liturgy of Holy Week without much problems.
Geocentrism has been defended by the Church during the trial of Galileo. According to Bellarmino, this interpretation of the Bible must be maintained until another explanation is credible. But that explanation was not shown by Galileo. Nor today either.
ReplyDeleteJoshua's passage, when the sun stops, has always been interpreted in the geocentric sense. It was Galileo who interpreted it in the heliocentric sense, and that was condemned at the trial. Galileo was the first modernist who interpreted Scripture in his own way.
On the other hand, all the Fathers defended geocentrism. Same as the Bible. Also scientific research. Experiments have been conducted to confirm the speed of the Earth, and the result has been null.
You have to read the works of Sungenis, physicist Bennet and others before speaking. Their job is very serious.
The day is not the supposed turn of the Earth around its axis, but the turn of the entire universe around the axis of the Earth. You have to read about that issue.
Gentlemen, your position is neither authoritarian nor Catholic. And I do not recognize the Popes post VC2.
Also, some comments call Salza "Masonic." And also that defends the flat earth. The last is not true. Therefore, that is an insult. Can you ensure the first?
As I said, point 36 of Humani Generis is very problematic, but there is only the possibility of investigating the evolution of the body. The capital letters are mine:
ReplyDelete“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church DOES NOT FORBID THAT, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRESENT STATE OF HUMAN SCIENCES AND SACRED THGEOLOGY, 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-EXISTING 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. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”
This point has allowed John Paul II to give wings to evolution. But evolution is a totally pagan and gnostic theory, oblivious to God's Creation. No Father of the Church has ever allowed the possibility of an evolution of the body. No previous Pope, no Magisterium. The concept of creation is ex nihilo. Or mud, of inanimate matter in the case of man.
Most atheists today are due to the theory of evolution. At the same time, "theistic evolution" has caused many errors in the Church. And it is also a mistake. No Pope before Pius XII has even suggested the possibility of body evolution. To tell the truth, neither Pius XII, but his expression is unfortunate. The Church has always understood the direct creation of man by God. That cannot be changed.
The Cathecism of The Council of Trent:
ReplyDelete"Production Of Man
Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be INMORTAL AND IMPASSIBLE, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God."
No one even remotely in the Church thought about the possibility of any evolution during at least XIX centuries.