I Shall Fear No Evil

 

To My Readers: This week TradWarrior discusses the problems Traditionalist Catholics face during the Great Apostasy from Satan. Please feel free to comment as usual. If anyone has any specific questions or comments for me, I will answer as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

I Shall Fear No Evil

By TradWarrior

 

Being a Catholic in today’s world has never been harder in many respects than it is today. For decades, the Catholic Church has had no visible pope to guide Her through these tumultuous times in which we are living. Each person on this planet is assaulted in different ways by the world, the flesh, and the devil. Catholics are no different. What we possess is that we are members of the One True Faith on Earth. We possess everything within the church to get us to heaven. But in these times, we are very much like the Jews of the Old Testament, wandering through the wilderness, trying to make our way as best we can. The focus of this post will be the assault by the last title mentioned – the devil.

Satan and his demons prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Like a lion, they seek to devour each and every one of us, so that when we die we are damned to hell to share in their misery. (1 Peter 5:8) Misery loves company. This post will serve to show the power that the demons possess. It will also demonstrate some powers that the demons do not possess.

One of the faulty beliefs today is that good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin, completely equal. They are like the yin yang in Taoism. We must remember that God is infinite. The demons, though powerful, are creatures and their power is only finite (strong though it is).  

There are different levels in which the demons can assault us and these will be briefly mentioned.

Temptation:

This includes ordinary attacks common to all humans. It involves internal enticements to sin. The demons provoke thoughts and emotions to influence free will, but cannot force a person to sin.

Oppression:

This is an extraordinary external attack that does not involve the loss of consciousness or bodily control. The demons target external circumstances, health, or emotions. It often presents as extreme melancholy, a heavy physical malaise, or persistent bad luck and physical suffering.

Obsession:

This is a severe psychological siege where a demon attacks a person’s interiority-specifically targeting their intellect and emotions. The subject experiences sudden irrational thoughts, intense neurosis, and possibly even frequent, persistent suicidal ideation. It makes it nearly impossible to focus on daily obligations or to sleep properly.

Possession: 

This is the most severe form of extraordinary diabolical influence where the demon takes full mastery over a person’s body. The demon acts through the physical body, rendering it non-responsive to the individual’s free will. The victim’s body may exhibit unnatural physical strength, they may levitate, speak in unknown languages (xenoglossy), display complete personality shifts while the demon acts as master, have an intense aversion to religious objects, and exhibit unnatural body and facial distortions, such as speaking in an inhuman voice, involuntary contortions, or moving in unnatural bodily movements e.g. slithering like a snake on the ground without using one’s arms and feet to propel them, which is physically impossible.   

The demons exercise a greater intellect and will then humans do. They are more powerful beings that we are. They do lack the intellect that the holy angels have, for by their fall their intellects were darkened.

For much of the remainder of this article, I will turn often to the angelic doctor himself – St. Thomas Aquinas.

In the Summa Theologica (I, Q. 41, A. 4), St. Thomas goes into the mode and order of the temptation.

St. Thomas says in his “Reply to Objection 3” that the devil was not satisfied with instigating a desire for riches and honors, but he went so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession of these things, to fall down and adore him, which is a great crime, and against God.

The temptations get worse. First, he wants Christ to work a miracle by turning the stones into bread. Christ replies, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Next, he tempts Christ to throw Himself off of the highest point of the temple. Christ replies, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” The last temptation is the worst of the three. He tells Christ that he will give Him all the kingdoms of the world if He bows down and worships him. Christ replies, “Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve.” The devil in his initial fall wanted resemblance with God. He sought to have final beatitude by his own power (See ST, I, Q. 63, A. 3).

What was the purpose of the devil tempting God? In short, it was to make Christ fall, like he wants all to fall into sin and then eventually into hell itself. But this is what Satan did not understand. As Rufinus of Aquileia said, “The purpose of the Incarnation was that the divine virtue of the Son of God might be as it were a hook hidden beneath the form of human flesh…to lure on the prince of this age to a contest; that the Son might offer him his flesh as a bait and that then the divinity which lay beneath might catch him and hold him fast with its hook…Then, as a fish when it seizes a baited hook not only fails to drag off the bait but is itself dragged out of the water to serve as food for others; so he that had the power of death seized the body of Jesus in death, unaware of the hook of divinity concealed therein. Having swallowed it, he was caught straightway; the bars of hell were burst, and he was, as it were, drawn up from the pit, to become food for others.” What this means was that God’s overarching plan all along was for the redemption of mankind. 

We know this of course, but at that time, Satan and the demons did not understand this, even with their advanced intellects. God the Father allowed God the Son to take on flesh of the Virgin Mary and to walk among His creation as one of them, like them in all ways except for sin. The question must be asked, “Who did Satan think that he was tempting?” Likewise, when Christ was undergoing His barbarous Passion, with the agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning of thorns, the carrying of the cross, the crucifixion, all the way leading up to His death – the demons assailed Him to no end, yet fall He never did. 

He had the power to come down from the cross. He chose not to because this was His plan to redeem mankind before the world ever was. “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and He will at once send Me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Mt. 26:53) Who did they think that they were tempting? In their advanced (though fallen) intellects, they knew that He was a prophet. They had a high probability in their thinking that this was the Messiah who had entered the world, for no one ever spoke like this man before, nor did the things that He did. But what they didn’t know was that He was God Incarnate. 

In the “Summa Theologica” (see ST, I, Q. 64, A. 1), St. Thomas Aquinas goes into great detail on the demons darkened intellects. He said that the demons had three kinds of knowledge. The first was their natural knowledge. This knowledge was neither taken away nor lessened in the demons. The second form of knowledge was knowledge from grace and while this hadn’t been utterly taken away from them, nevertheless, it was lessened from their fall. Their third type of knowledge, explains Aquinas, is by long experience. 

Demons do not know the future with absolute certainty—that is reserved for God. However, because they have existed since the beginning of creation and possess acute intellects, they use long experience to recognize patterns. By observing natural causes, terrestrial events, and human habits over centuries, they are highly skilled at making deductions about present situations or predicting future outcomes that might not be obvious to humans. It is the second form of knowledge here that comes into play – knowledge lessened from the light of divine grace. The demons fell but the holy angels did not. The holy angels have knowledge from grace and understand divine matters in greater detail than the fallen angels do. 

According to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, when the devil was tempting Christ in the desert and saying, “If you are the Son of God…,” they are not saying this in a way that we understand it to mean. When we read it, it sounds like they are saying this in a mocking fashion such as, “If you are the Son of God, then you can obviously do this or that because after all, you are the Son of God.” It is a form of arrogance in their taunting him. While this may hold true to some extent, according to these two great theologians, when the demons say, “If you are the Son of God…,” they are asking Him this because they did NOT KNOW WITH FULL CERTAINTY (emphasis added) that He truly was the Son of God. Why? Because their intellects were darkened by their fall and knowledge from grace was lessened in them. They could miscalculate. They did not know with full certainty that this was the Son of God. As Aquinas states in his “Reply to Objection 4” in quoting St. Augustine, “For had they fully and certainly known that He was the Son of God and the effect of His Passion, they would never have procured the crucifixion of the Lord of glory.” 

In other words, they did not know truly that this was the Son of God because if they did, they never would have gone to so much trouble persecuting Him and executing Him because in the end, He was going to triumph despite their best efforts against Him. Why? Because HE IS GOD! “The ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over Me.” (Jn. 14:30) This is a huge weakness of theirs. While they are far superior in intellect over human beings, (although inferior in intellect to the holy angels), they are creatures and they can make mistakes in their thinking. They do not make mistakes in the way that humans make mistakes in their thinking, because their intellects operate at a much higher level than human beings, but they do calculate things incorrectly. Their intellect and their power are limited.

St. Thomas expounds on this even greater in his other monumental work “De Malo.” (On Evil) He asks the question, “Do Devils Know Future Things?” (see Q. 16, “On Devils”, A. 7). 

Due to the length of his answer, I will highlight some of his most poignant points in this section that he covers.

*Damascene says that God alone, not human beings or devils, knows future things. Everyone can know better the things that belong to oneself than the things that belong to others. And so 1 Cor. 2:11 says: "No one knows what belongs to a person save the person's spirit within the person." But devils did not foreknow their fall, as Augustine makes clear in his “Literal Commentary on Genesis.” Therefore, much less can devils know other future things.

*Devils sometime predict true things about the future and sometimes false things. And they predict true things when they foreknow them by the revelations of good spirits that originate from God or in their external causes, whose power they know, or in what causes propose to do, as when they predict the things they themselves are about to do. And they sometimes predict false things wishing to deceive human beings, since the devil is "a liar and the father of lies," as Jn. 8:44 says. And they sometimes predict false things because they themselves are deceived, as when God prevents them from doing what they intend to do, or when something happens by God's power beyond the ordinary course of natural causes, as Augustine says in his work “On the Divination of Devils.”

*Devils' substance and activities indeed transcend the time that numbers the movements of heavenly bodies, but time is connected with their activity insofar as they do not actually understand everything at the same time. And this time indeed involves change in their desires and thoughts about intelligible things. And so Augustine says in his “Literal Commentary on Genesis” that God causes the movements of spiritual creatures through time.

Aquinas goes on and delves into this matter in heavy fashion, but the overall point is that the demons do not know all future events. Only God does. They can error, again due to what Aquinas said in his “Summa Theologica”, because of the fact that their knowledge from grace was severely lessened due to their fall.

There are other areas where the demons are handicap and lacking too. One such area is the demons cannot know the interior thoughts of men. They cannot read their hearts, so to speak. The demons know some causes of our thoughts, but they do not know all of them. Only God knows the interior thoughts of men completely.

Evil is a void of good. The demons in their fall made a choice and this choice was irreversible. The will of the demons is obstinate in evil. The demons sin is greater than man’s sin. Consequently, the demons are much more punished than humans are. Since the demon has a perverse and obstinate will, he is not sorry for the evil of sin. Not only will the demons exist in misery forever, but they want human beings to join them in hell forever to suffer with them. Again, misery loves company.

The beatitude and the punishment of both the demons and human beings will be magnified after Judgement Day. When Christ returns to judge the world, it will greatly affect all of creation. When humans die, if their souls go to Heaven, they experience great joy. If they die and their souls go to Hell, they experience horrific pain. If their souls go to Purgatory, they suffer pain, but this pain will eventually become joy once the soul goes to Heaven and experiences the beatific vision. This is after all of a soul’s temporal punishment has been expiated. 

Some souls have very little expiation to make for the temporal punishment that remains on their souls after death and they are ushered into Heaven fairly quickly. Others have a very long stay in Purgatory, having much more temporal punishment to expiate after death. After Judgement Day, our souls will be reunited with our bodies. For the blessed, the joy will exponentially increase, in both soul and body. For the reprobate, the punishment will greatly intensify as both the soul and the body will suffer in Hell forever. The beatitude/joy is greatly magnified in the Elect, while the pain and punishment is greatly magnified in the Damned. Likewise, the demons will suffer even more after Judgement Day, when Christ judges the world.

In times of greater sanity, Catholics had an easier time following the Catholic Church. Now, the question is, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Simply put, the church exists in those faithful followers who have remained traditional Catholics in this godless age in which we are living. The Great Apostasy wreaked incalculable havoc on the world and the casualties cannot be counted. Authority is derived from the pope down through the bishops down through the priests and finally down through the people. What has transpired in the last few decades has been a removal of the institutional structure of the church. The Vatican II sect splintered off from the True Catholic Church and in doing so, most of the “Catholic” world went along with the false sect that parades itself as “The Catholic Church.” The “pope,” “bishops,”, and “priests,” are anything but. The true clergy exist in the faithful traditional remnant that exists in pockets scattered here and there throughout the world. 

The demons assault has grown and magnified unlike any other time, because now, the attack is coming from every angle imaginable. The number and prevalence of sins attacking mankind is out of control. Abortion, contraception, divorce, fornication, theft, murder, homosexual acts, pornography, and so many other sins run rampant everywhere now. In every age, whenever mankind was afflicted by sin, caused by the world, the flesh, and the devil, individual Christians sought the sacraments and stayed close to the church as their safe haven. But the church is not as easily found now, because the Conciliar Church has usurped the Traditional Church. It has eclipsed it. 

The pope is the guardian of the church. It was he and he alone, who Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. (Mt. 16:18-19) Remove him from the equation, and evil runs amok everywhere! Not all sins are due to the demons, but many are, and the demons have had a field day with what has transpired to the Catholic Church in the last several decades. The demons know in the end that they lose, for they cannot defeat God, just like they cannot defeat His Church. They do not know exactly when their “reign of terror” comes to an end, but it does come to an end. They know this.

 

Conclusion

How do Catholics weather the storm that is currently engulfing the world (spiritually speaking)? It is not easy and it continues to get harder. It is not impossible though, for God never asks the impossible of us. We must make use of everything at our spiritual disposal that we have.

*The traditional Mass is our greatest weapon that we have. Those who are within driving distance of a traditional church should make use of the sacraments often, especially the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Remaining in the state of grace is important to staying holy.

*The rosary needs to be prayed daily. 5 decades should be prayed minimally. For those who are able to pray the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries every day, it is a very good idea, for even more graces will flow through Our Lady to us.

*Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary are very powerful. Consecrations to the Two Hearts should be made frequently.

*The Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is helpful.

*Praying the Stations of the Cross is useful.

*Wearing sacramentals such as the Miraculous Medal, the St. Benedict Medal, the Brown Scapular, the Green Scapular, etc. are very helpful to ward off evil.

*Devotion to St. Joseph is strongly encouraged and sadly neglected. St. Joseph is the “terror of the demons.” His intercessory power with God is only second to Our Lady.

*Prayers to a person’s guardian angel are very important. God has given us an angel protector over the course of our entire life. We need to make use of this spiritual friend as much as possible. Don’t just pray to your angel, talk to your angel frequently too.

*The Chaplet of St. Michael is a great devotion to ask for the intercession of all of the holy angels in our combat again Satan and the demons. These are the holy angels who did not fall and remained faithful to God. Their intercession is especially powerful and collectively when praying this chaplet, the strength of their intercession is greatly magnified.

*Finally, we must pray for the grace of final perseverance. It is easy to “fall off the wagon” so to speak, especially in these times! We need to persevere to the end, so that we may save our souls.

We must stay close to the Catholic Church. Without a visible pope to guide it in these times, it is harder on everyone. There are going to be divisions among traditional Catholics and the demons take great delight in this. Still, the church exists until the end of the world and the church is victorious in the end. Christ will one day return to judge this world. He is always faithful to us and we must remain faithful to Him until He returns. 

Yes, the demons have much power over us, but there are things that they are limited by, as I have demonstrated in this article. Powerful as they are, they remain just creatures, not the Creator. Their influence over us will end once Christ puts an end to everything and subjects all of His enemies under His feet. (Ps. 110:1) No one knows that day or hour, only God alone. Human beings, the angels, and the demons alike, do not know when Christ will return. We must do all we can to remain faithful and vigilant. This is all Christ asks of us. We leave the rest to Him. It is in His Hands. “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (Jn. 16:33)

Recognizing The Occult---Part 4

 

This is the fourth of some posts I will publish on occult symbolism. I've written much on occult practices and how it influences things like music and movies, but not so much on occult symbols. Sometimes my friends will ask, "I want to buy [certain item they show me] but a writing or a picture on it looks strange. Is it occult?" Good question. Sometimes someone will know something is occult, but they don't know exactly why it's bad, other than the general condemnation of the occult by the Church and found in the Bible. 

This post will continue to expose occult symbolism. While many things today are occult, not every symbol or writing we don't understand is automatically "occult." We must learn to discern. You may be better equipped to help a family member or friend who has some occult symbol in his/her possession and may not realize it, thinking it harmless. My first post in this series was published on 4/27/26.  It is well worth reading first if you have not already done so--it gives some background on symbolism which I will not repeat here. 

I claim no credit for any of the material in this post. All I did was compile the research on the occult into a terse and reader-friendly installment on this blog. The material comes from many online and print resources.  I hope you find it useful. Please comment and let me know if you got something out of it.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Ambiguous Occult Symbols

These symbols require careful discernment, as their meaning shifts with context—sometimes serving legitimate conventional purposes, other times signaling the occult.

Butterflies

Meaning: Sometimes it simply is used to show something pretty and decorative in the home. The occult meaning is the soul’s metamorphosis. The butterfly symbolizes transformation and immortality—in Greek, psyche means both “soul” and “butterfly.” Its life cycle (caterpillar-chrysalis-winged insect) provides a visual metaphor for the soul’s liberation from earthly limitations. 

Origin: Treasured across cultures for millennia, Aztecs used butterflies to represent souls of slain warriors, Greeks portrayed Psyche with butterfly wings as a mortal freed from death, and early Christians adopted the butterfly to symbolize the soul leaving the body at death and eternal life. 

Uses Today: Appears frequently in décor, fashion, memorial art, and tattoos signaling transformation and new life. Used by Carl Jung to reflect psychic vigor and stages of self-discovery. Popular as a wholesome symbol of renewal and resurrection. 

How it should be used: Early Catholics rightly embraced this imagery for resurrection (caterpillar-chrysalis-butterfly mirroring life-death-resurrection), but believers must distinguish Christ’s once-for-all triumph from pagan narratives of souls endlessly transmigrating through lifetimes via false/heretical reincarnation. 

Bees

Meaning: Lost in the swarm. In Freemasonry, the beehive represents “industry,” cooperation, and a well‑ordered community of workers laboring together under the “Great Architect.” In various occult and neo‑pagan traditions, the bee and queen bee are linked with the “Divine Feminine” and the generative power of nature. They are sometimes used to express ideas of group consciousness or a “hive mind,” where the individual is subordinated to the collective. 

Origin: In ancient Mediterranean religion, bees were regarded as sacred and as messengers between worlds, associated with the souls of the dead and the underworld. Priestesses of Demeter and Artemis were called Melissae (bees), serving the goddess of the hive with absolute obedience. Many ancients also believed that bees were born spontaneously from the carcasses of cattle (a practice known as bugonia), making them symbols of life emerging from death and of agricultural rebirth. 

Uses Today: In the occult, it is central to “honey jar” spells (popular in Voodoo and witchcraft), which are used to “sweeten” a target’s disposition or bind them in sticky emotional attachment. The hive also endures as a visible badge of “state-building” theology, appearing on Masonic aprons and as the official emblem of Utah (Mormonism’s “State of Deseret”) to mark a commitment to the collective work. Culturally, the “hive” label has been secularized by super-fandoms (like Beyoncé’s “BeyHive”) to signal a fierce, shared identity centered on a matriarchal figure. 

How it should be used: If a symbol of diligence ("busy as a bee") and spring in someone's home, there' no problem. Otherwise, no one should have anything to do with a symbol employed by the Synagogue of Satan.

Caduceus

Meaning: The wand of the deal-maker. Featuring two serpents entwined in a figure eight around a winged staff, it represents commerce, negotiation, and the alchemical “union of opposites.” In the occult, it is a symbol of Hermetic power and balance. In culture, it represents the trickster god Hermes—patron of merchants, thieves, and liars —making its frequent use in healthcare a bitter irony. 

Origin: Ancient Mesopotamia (c. 2600 BC) and Greece. It was the herald’s staff of Hermes, granting him safe passage between worlds. Its association with medicine is a modern error; historically, it has nothing to do with healing. 

Uses Today: Often mistakenly used as a medical symbol by some health organizations (the Rod of Asclepius, not Caduceus, is the historically accurate medical emblem). In occult contexts, it functions as a marker in alchemical art and mystical diagrams, signifying supernatural power and hidden wisdom. 

How it should be used: In medical settings, the Caduceus typically means healthcare, not magick, and can be accepted as a conventional professional sign. However, in Hermetic or alchemical settings, it signals a rival spirituality to avoid. Traditionalists must discern context and reject uses that promote occult worldviews. 

Rod of Asclepius

Meaning: The true sign of the healer. A single serpent wrapped around a rough staff, it represents the physician’s art: the intuition and skill needed to use potentially harmful substances (like snake venom) for restoration. It symbolizes the reality that healing often requires facing death and poison to extract life. 

Origin: The badge of the Cult of Asclepius, who was revered as the first physician and Greek god of medicine. Sick pilgrims would sleep in his temples among non venomous snakes, seeking a cure. It is the historically accurate emblem of medicine, distinct from the magical associations of the Caduceus. The symbol may have originated from a medical procedure for removing parasites by winding them around a stick. 

Uses Today: The historically accurate medical emblem for hospitals, medical associations, and healthcare organizations worldwide. Often confused with the Caduceus but represents legitimate medical practice and care. WARNING: Some think the symbol imparts healing. That is occult.

How it should be used: This symbol is appropriate as a conventional sign representing healthcare and the physician’s profession. However, Traditionalists must reject any notion that the image itself conveys spiritual power. God heals through ordinary means and sometimes miracles.

 Crescent Moon

Meaning: The distinctive curved shape of the waxing or waning moon, representing the changing lunar cycle. Symbolically connected to the feminine principle, water, fertility, renewal, and growth. When resting on its back, it resembles a chalice or vessel. 

Origin: Deeply rooted in antiquity, predating modern religious use by thousands of years. Historically associated with powerful goddesses like Artemis/Diana and the Moon Goddess Tanit. The Ottoman Empire adopted it as an imperial emblem after founder Osman witnessed it stretch across the sky in a dream. 

Uses Today: Appears as a national or religious emblem on flags of several nations and mosque architecture, particularly in Islamic contexts. Also found in jewelry, charms, and Neopagan lunar-magic iconography for ritual timing and practice. 

How it should be used: Sometimes a crescent moon will appear on children's pajama's to be a sign of nighttime/bedtime. No problems there. However, those who look to the moon in the occult are often seeking a “divine feminine” tenderness and a rhythm to life that feels more intuitive than rigid; they want to be held by a cycle greater than themselves. The "greater than themselves" they seek can only be found in Christ and His One True Church. 

Conclusion

As I wrote in my first three posts on this topic:

Symbols have deep meaning and are important. They link things tangible to realities that are intangible. We can't see love, but when a man brings red roses to his wife, love is symbolized. The ultimate symbol of love is the crucifix, God died so we may live forever. Those are wonderful symbols. However, when the symbol is linked to intangible evils by symbolizing heresies, immoralities and calling upon (evil) spirits for "protection" they become an invitation (wittingly or not) for evil to enter your life. Invite evil in and it will take you up on your request.  

Contending For The Faith---Part 53

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Evolving Thoughts On Adam

To My Readers: Nothing new will be written here. It is a compilation of prior writings on a contentious subject that has risen once more. It deals with the possibility that the body of Adam may have developed and was not directly from "dust" or "slime." To be certain, a Catholic can believe either, as the question was never settled.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The subject of this post is the origin of the First Man, Adam. Many Traditionalist Catholics (and "conservative" Vatican II sect members) read the Bible literally in every verse, like a Fundamentalist Protestant. This is in reaction to the Modernist exegetes who reduce the Bible to little more than a collection of fairy tales stripped of any and all historical and supernatural character. This causes them to make false assertions, like claiming you must believe the universe was created in exactly six days, and each day lasting exactly 24 hours in duration. The point of contention to be addressed here concerns the denial that a Catholic may believe that the body of the First Man was the result of any type of development. Cries of "evolution," and "blasphemy" will abound. Yet what the Church teaches is not what these new "Catholic fundamentalists" insist you must believe. My purpose here is to show what may (not must) be believed, and what may not. I leave it to the reader to do further research and draw their own conclusion as to what their position will be within the limitations set forth by Holy Mother Church. 

The Teaching of the Church on Biblical Interpretation Regarding Genesis

When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical...

Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation." 

It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired." 

Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis in bold and italics from the original text--bold, italicized, and underlined is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death). 

In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:

Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]; Emphasis mine). 

Several Principles of Interpretation

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.

...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer. (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes [interpreters] are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. (See theologian Cevetello, Getting to Know the Bible, [1957], pg. 64).

On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) 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 as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.

Formation of Eve (Genesis 2:21-22): According to a decree of the [Pontifical] Biblical Commission, the doctrine of the formation of the first Woman from Man must be maintained. However, the exact way in which it took place remains a mystery about which you are able to say nothing; for only that One knows who was responsible for Creation. (See Cevetello, Ibid, pgs. 65-66). 

From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:

• the Creation of the world ex nihil (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time
• the special creation of the First Man
• the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man
• the souls of human beings are created immediately ex nihil by God
• the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents
• our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin
• Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)
• Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan
• God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ

Did Pope Pius XII Make a Mistake in Allowing Study on the Possible Evolution of the Human Body of Adam?

Those who think the idea that the body of Adam was formed from pre-existing living matter and developed to receive a soul is heretical, denounce Pope Pius XII for allowing it to be studied, as he wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950. They usually advance three lines of argumentation:

1. His Holiness was wrong to allow the study of a subject that was settled, much like Montini (Paul VI) was wrong to allow study on the morality of artificial contraception; The Church Fathers were unanimous against the idea of evolution of the body.

2. It was only permitting study, and in no way gives any real credence to the idea of the evolution of the body, which is from godless Darwinian scientists.

3. The idea of evolution of the first human body is of recent development under the influence of Modernism. It would necessitate death existing before the Fall of Adam which is absurd.

On The Contrary:

Response to #1: The subject was NOT settled, the Church never having pronounced on the subject, and there was vigorous debate between theologians. Certain "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect, will twist the decisions on the Pontifical Biblical Commission to make it fit their Protestant interpretation of every word of Genesis being literal.

Some Traditionalists  claim none of the Fathers held that the universe is ancient, so that opinion is not permissible. (Tell that to Pope St. Pius X!). The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make allegorical interpretations, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:

...in interpreting those passages of these chapters [of Genesis] that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct. 

There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis. Some Traditionalists claim  a binding consensus of the Fathers on a plethora of  biblical teachings. Yet, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII taught:

...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (para. #47; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:

Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis;...(Ibid, para. #31; Emphasis mine). 

Therefore, to analogize the study of the development of the first human body to Montini's allowing study on the subject of birth control is fallacious because birth control is settled, but not the mode of the production of Adam's body. 

Response to #2:

We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" DE is to be rejected. That is godless, and not the idea that God permitted and guided the development of the first human body. 

The study was permitted because it is an open question. There is no definitive teaching. Pope Pius XII does not endorse the development of the human body, butt neither does he censure it or disapprove of it in any way. Hence, the study of the question. 

Response to #3:

The idea of the development of the human body is by no means recent, as the teachings of the theologians will demonstrate. Does the Church forbid the idea that death of animals and plants only happened after the Fall? No. The argument against bodily development is that there would be death involved with plants and brutes prior to Original Sin. Original Sin brought human death, conceded; that it brought death of plants and animals; denied.

Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:

Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food. [Even herbivores] must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant, [not to mention the destruction of]  millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.

In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic [Genesis] account, took place when man fell. (See Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). 

What Pope Pius XII actually taught:

...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.  For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (See Humani Generis para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism.

The Teaching of the Church

The approved theologians are clear that the opinion of a human body that developed and was not created immediately can be (not must be) held:

Theologian Sagues:

But whether with regard to his [Adam] body he is in some way from a brute (but not without the special intervention of God) is an open question, which has not yet been clearly and certainly explained by the investigations of natural science, and which will have to be solved with certainty perhaps in the future with the help of faith and guided by revelation. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, [1955], pg.236; Emphasis in original). 

Theologian Hunter (d. 1896):

Others think it possible that close study of the visible world, which we have called a divinely composed commentary upon the Written Word may possibly give good ground for believing that the apparent meaning of the Mosaic narrative is not the true meaning, and that the body of the first Man was prepared by the operation of natural causes, without any extraordinary action of God. These therefore suspend their judgement, and await further light upon the subject, whether it come to them by a pronouncement of the Church, or by the progress of natural science. (See Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, [1895], pg. 420; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Tanquerey (d.1932):

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The reasons for and against it[development of the body of Adam], we shall explain.

The obvious meaning of the narrative in Genesis is that Adam's body was formed from the slime of the Earth, that is, from inorganic matter, but not from the body of some brute...

On the contrary, if the nature of the narrative is considered to be popular historic, employing metaphors then in use among the Semites, slime can thus be metaphorically understood to signify only the material or or physico-chemical elements from which Man's body is constituted, whether they still be inanimate and inorganic, or whether they be already ordered and living in an animal organism. In other words, the sacred author intended only to teach this: Man has been created by God of matter and of spirit--without affirming anything concerning the form or the manner of being of this matter. 

This interpretation seems to be entirely in conformity with the principles set forth by Leo XIII in the Encyclical Providentissimus, and repeated by Pius XII in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, namely: the sacred authors do not give a properly or peculiarly scientific teaching, but "they describe and treat these very things either according to a certain manner of translation, or as the common speech reported them in those times."

The nearly unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and of the ancient Theologians, excepting Origen, Cajetan, and a few others, favors the opinion of the immediate production of the human body.

On the contrary, we must understand that the Fathers and ancient Theologians only repeat the words of Sacred Scripture. A dispute had not arisen regarding the manner of forming the human body; this dispute they had no intentions in any way of settling. Wherefore it is apparent that they do not propose as a doctrine of faith the immediate formation of the body by God from the slime of the Earth in opposition to the mediate formation. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959] English edition, 1:394-398; Emphasis in original).

Theologian Ott says similarly:
The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the formation of the human body by God through the development of pre-existing living matter may be believed. You need not believe it, but you can. If you want to believe in geocentrism, a 6,000 year-old Earth, a literal Creation of six days lasting twenty-four hours each, and the formation of Adam's body from slime--you certainly can believe that. The problem arises when certain Traditionalists maintain these beliefs are "dogma" which must be believed.  The formation of Adam's body through progressive development  is possible. The approved theologians explain how there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this matter, and it was never settled by the Magisterium. Does that mean human "developed from "apes"? No, from an animal form and God intervened so that it would not be directly from a brute beast. 

There are those who would have us believe that the approved theologians taught open heresy in their theological manuals, written under the careful watch of the Magisterium, and they were never censured or corrected in any way. Those who maintain only a literal interpretation  of Genesis is possible, are either culpably ignorant of Church teaching, or fall into the same error as the  "recognize and resist" movement. Who decides what is permitted to be believed? Ultimately, each individual. The individual decides when there is unanimous consent of the Fathers and what Scripture means, not the Magisterium (unless the individual happens to agree). Like Protestants, everyone picks and chooses what to believe by private interpretation. A true Traditionalist realizes that the Church tells us what is permissible to believe, for "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16).