Few topics invite so much misinformation and disinformation as the origin of the universe and the human race. Protestant fundamentalists will say that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago in six (6) twenty-four (24) hour time periods, while Modernists will assert that the biblical account of Genesis is largely a myth and humans evolved in a strict Neo-Darwinian fashion. Then we have the atheists who love to portray theists (and Christians in particular) as anti-science and superstitious dolts. Whenever a Traditionalist is presented with such a topic, we must put aside our feelings and prejudices to ask, "What does the Church teach on this matter?" In the absence of a true pope, it is vital not to seek our answers from our private interpretations of Scripture, or private revelations (alleged messages from apparitions, or even the mystic writings of certain saints) but from the authoritative teachings of the popes, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. In this post, I will seek to dispel some popular myths, and then present Church teaching.
Hollywood vs. Religion
The atheists and other enemies of the Church who run most of the media, have been doing their best to denigrate Traditional Catholicism, and even any form of belief in Christ from Protestant sects.It didn't just start in recent years either. The 1955 play and 1960 film Inherit the Wind is an excellent example of anti-God propaganda. The movie (starring Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, and Gene Kelly) purports to accurately dramatize the events surrounding the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which transpired in Dayton, Tennessee. The movie has the same relationship to reality as the "fake news" of today.
According to the movie, John T. Scopes (1900-1970) is a high school biology teacher who loves science and passionately introduces his students to the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), only to be violently denounced by the ill-educated, unenlightened, and bigoted town leaders--all of whom are fundamentalist Protestants. Scopes is thrown in prison for violating the law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Scopes' girlfriend is the daughter of the town preacher, and begs him to renounce his belief in Darwinism. Scopes bravely refuses to "deny the truth."
Then comes lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), the champion of truth, science, reason and humanity. He will defend Scopes pro bono (free of charge). The prosecuting attorney is William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), an ignorant, ill-mannered Protestant fundamentalist who says in the movie, "...the Lord began the creation on the twenty-third of October in the year 4004 B.C. at--uh, at 9 a.m.!" I hate to tell you how many people I know who believe this rubbish to be an accurate account of what actually happened (highly educated people among them). They have been brainwashed into buying the whole "science vs. religion" canard. God is the author of all truths meaning that the True Faith, and the truths of science, cannot contradict each other.
In his 1998 Pulitzer Prize winning book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, historian, lawyer, and author Edward J. Larson does a splendid job of setting the record straight.
According to the movie, John T. Scopes (1900-1970) is a high school biology teacher who loves science and passionately introduces his students to the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), only to be violently denounced by the ill-educated, unenlightened, and bigoted town leaders--all of whom are fundamentalist Protestants. Scopes is thrown in prison for violating the law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Scopes' girlfriend is the daughter of the town preacher, and begs him to renounce his belief in Darwinism. Scopes bravely refuses to "deny the truth."
Then comes lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), the champion of truth, science, reason and humanity. He will defend Scopes pro bono (free of charge). The prosecuting attorney is William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), an ignorant, ill-mannered Protestant fundamentalist who says in the movie, "...the Lord began the creation on the twenty-third of October in the year 4004 B.C. at--uh, at 9 a.m.!" I hate to tell you how many people I know who believe this rubbish to be an accurate account of what actually happened (highly educated people among them). They have been brainwashed into buying the whole "science vs. religion" canard. God is the author of all truths meaning that the True Faith, and the truths of science, cannot contradict each other.
In his 1998 Pulitzer Prize winning book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, historian, lawyer, and author Edward J. Larson does a splendid job of setting the record straight.
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times, offering free legal services to any teacher prepared to stand trial for teaching evolution, prohibited by the "Butler Act" passed that same year by the Tennessee legislature.
- Local business leaders in Dayton, lead by George Rappleyea and drugstore owner Frank Robinson, thought that if a trial like this could be held in Dayton, it would give major publicity to the town and boost the economy.
- They recruited Scopes, who was not a biology teacher. He taught physics and math, and coached football. He did substitute on occasion for the biology teacher, and mentioned evolution so he could be the "test case."
- The conspirators contacted the ACLU. Scopes was arrested and charged with one count of violating the Butler Act. He was immediately released on bail. He never spent a single minute in jail.
- The textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, by George Hunter, had a chapter on evolution. Hunter was an advocate of eugenics and held a low opinion of the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and epileptics, all of whom he put in the same category with habitual criminals. He stated that, "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading...we do have the remedy...preventing intermarriage and the possibility of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." (See A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, NY: American Book Company, [1914], pg. 263; Emphasis mine).
- William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democratic nominee for US President, a US Congressman, and US Secretary of State, opposed evolution because of the eugenics it engenders. By 1925, 24 states had laws permitting forced sterilizations on the "mentally feeble" and approximately 12,000 such sterilizations had occurred. He believed in a universe that was very old, and that the days in Genesis were not literal.
- Clarence Darrow was everything that decent lawyers (such as myself), abhor in the profession. Scopes was his first and only pro bono case, because he had an avowed hatred for Christianity. Just months before the Scopes trial, he defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, the sons of two very wealthy families in Chicago, when they murdered fourteen (14) year old Bobby Franks just to see if they could (literally) get away with the murder of someone they didn't like. Darrow argued that they were "psychologically determined" from birth to do what they did, and both killers escaped the death penalty.
What the Church Teaches on Creation
Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day." The following question was proposed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission:
"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"
On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:
"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE." This means that the "days" of creation need not be actual periods of twenty-four hours each. This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."
In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies.That's why it is created first. The creation of Man comes last to show Him as God's crowning achievement. There ARE strong arguments from modern science which would validate this interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (1894-1966). The Communists forbade the Big Bang to be taught, because they taught the "Steady State Theory" (the universe always existed), and it did not imply the need for a Creator! I stand, as ever, to be corrected should Holy Mother Church be restored and teach otherwise.
In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies.That's why it is created first. The creation of Man comes last to show Him as God's crowning achievement. There ARE strong arguments from modern science which would validate this interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (1894-1966). The Communists forbade the Big Bang to be taught, because they taught the "Steady State Theory" (the universe always existed), and it did not imply the need for a Creator! I stand, as ever, to be corrected should Holy Mother Church be restored and teach otherwise.
The Church and Evolution
What of Adam and Eve? Did they evolve or were they created exactly as stated in Genesis?
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis of August 12, 1950 states:
"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. 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."
As theologian Sagues explains, "With these words therefore it is supposed or asserted that evolutionism, and indeed only regarding the human body, is not a fact that has really been demonstrated, but a "hypothesis," and one that touches on doctrine contained in Scripture and Tradition. It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps, and also in gravity and moderation in advancing reasons for or against transformism [evolution--Introibo], provided that all are ready to submit to the judgement of the Church." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B [1955], pgs. 236-237; Emphasis mine).
Summary and Conclusion
- There is much misinformation and disinformation regarding the origin of the universe and humanity.
- The atheists, Masons, and other enemies of the Church do everything in their power to make it appear that science and theology are at war, when in fact God is the author of both the True Religion and true science so no contradiction is even possible.
- Inherit the Wind is but one example of propaganda that mixes truth, half-truths, and outright lies under the guise of "history" to demonize those who believe in God and make them seem "unscientific."
- Traditionalists must follow the teaching of the Church in this and all matters. Look to actual Church teaching and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians for guidance in an age of near universal apostasy without a pope to lead us.
- We are permitted by the Church to believe Creation was not in a literal six days, and that Genesis might not convey the exact order of Creation. Rather, it may have been told to make a point.
- Evolution of the human body only, is open to discussion among experts under the guidance of the Church. This theory cannot be directly or indirectly opposed to the Faith, or Pope Pius XII would not have authoritatively allowed it to be the subject of open discussion; rather, it would have been condemned outright.
The relationship between science and the True Religion, when properly understood, presents no difficulties. Just be sure to look for your guidance to actual Church teaching in the decrees of the popes, Roman Congregations, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. There are many questions (such as evolution of the body and the time involved in creation) that are open to differing opinions, and cannot be solved until the Church is restored. We have no business condemning those whom the Church Herself does not condemn in areas open to theological differences, unless/until the Church is restored and decrees a definitive answer. I believe in an old universe that God began with a Big Bang and that the human body may have developed over time before God's special intervention. You might deny both. However, we both remain loyal sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church. Let's focus on our common enemy, the Vatican II sect, and not busy ourselves in condemning fellow Traditionalists in matters left unresolved.
Interesting given that Chattanooga is the city where Martin Luther King Jr enrolled in a communist school & was the taught the finer points of civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteAll the Fathers, basing their judgments on Genesis, held that the world was under 10,000 years old. Why would a faithful Catholic even consider believing anything contrary to that?
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
DeleteThe Bible is not (strictly speaking) a science text. Holy Mother Church has wisely left the age of the universe as a matter up for discussion. If the teaching of the Fathers was definitive, Pope St Pius X, Foe of Modernism, surely would not permit any discussion of the issue, but would have settled it.
You are entitled to hold the opinion that you do. However, my opinion (and that's all it is; an opinion)is based on the latest findings of science. For example, in Jack Hills, Australia, the rocks have been scientifically dated to be 4.4 BILLION years old. If we had a true pope, I believe he would resolve the issue in favor of an old earth and a creation that goes far back in time. Since we have no pope, we just have a difference of opinion.
---Introibo
So, let me get this straight. Some atheist scientist claims to have scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.4 billion years old, and suddenly the universal interpretation of the Fathers on this point in the Scriptures is thereby rendered, in your opinion, to be false and worthless. With all due respect, Introibo, that does not seem to be a very faithful way of proceeding.
ReplyDeleteNow do you really believe that the Good God would allow all the Fathers of the Church to misinterpret His Holy Scripture, and then have this false interpretation to be followed by all His saints throughout history, and then in the end to have all these saints rebuked and corrected on this point by some filthy, atheist dog? Does that seem plausible to you?
George,
DeleteDon't you think you're jumping the gun just a bit? Several scientists have dated the rocks, not just one, and do you know that they were all atheists? Granted that most (unfortunately) are but that doesn't mean they were trying to "disprove Genesis."
Fr. Lemaitre, the originator of the Big Bang theory, believed the universe must be at least MILLIONS of years old. He was never censured by the Church, but praised by Popes Pius XI and XII. Dr. Francis Crick, world-renowned pioneer in genetics, believes in the basic tenets of Christianity (the Triune God and the Divinity of Christ).
Lastly, why is it implausible that Genesis might not be literal in certain parts? What DOGMA would be compromised if the world were millions or billions of years old, as opposed to 6,000 or 10,000 years old? Pope St Pius X, did not feel the same as you. If the Fathers were definitive, why not condemn the idea that the Earth is older than 10,000 years? Why allow free discussion on a matter you claim is settled?
Many people have written to tell me that Pope Pius XII was a weak pope, that he "gave in to Modernists," and some went so far as to accuse him of heresy! However, no one has ever dared to make such claims about Pope St Pius X.
Science and the True Faith are not enemies.
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThere's a difference between what we are allowed to believe and what we ought to believe. You seem to think that we ought to believe the conjectures of secular science and the opinions of some liberal 20th-century theologians over the unanimous teaching of the Patristic Fathers and the plain reading of the Scriptures. I, on the other hand, hold that the Scriptures and the patristic interpretations thereof are always the safer way to proceed.
We'll both be finding out which way was better soon enough.
If we OUGHT to believe something, why would the Magisterium ALLOW us to believe differently? Pope St. Pius X was a "liberal 20th century theologian"? The teaching of St. Augustine lead to an allegorical interpretation of Scripture--read Caillin's comment below.
DeleteI agree with you George, that one day we will know for sure. Until then I will agree to disagree agreeably!
God bless you my friend!
---Introibo
Here’s the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on this subject:
ReplyDeleteHexameron
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm
It's interesting what it says about St. Augustine’s interpretation:
"St. Augustine attempted three different times to explain the Hexaemeron in a literal sense, but each time he ended with an allegorical exegesis. In 389 ("De Gen. c. Manich." in P.L., XXXIV, 173) he arrived at the conclusion that the cosmogonic evening and morning denote the completion and the inception of each successive work. In 393 ("De Gen. ad lit. lib. imperf." in P.L., XXXIV, 221) the great African Doctor starts again with a literal explanation of Genesis 1, but is soon perplexed by the questions: Did God consume the whole day in creating the various works? — How could there be days before there were heavenly luminaries? — How could there be light before the existence of the sun and the stars? — This leads him to adopt simultaneous creation, to identify the light of the first day with the angels, and to explain the evening and morning by the limitation and the beauty of the various created objects. In 401 Augustine began the third time to explain the Hexaemeron ("De Gen. ad lit. libr. XII" in P.L., XXXIV, 245; cf. "Retract.", II, 24; "Confess.", lib. XII sq., in P.L., XXXII, 825), but published his results only fifteen years later. He admits again a simultaneous formation of the world, so that the six days indicate an order of dignity — angels, the firmament, the earth, etc. Morning and evening he refers now to the knowledge of the angels, assuming that they denote respectively the angelic vision of things in the Word of God, and the vision of the objects themselves. The opinion of Augustine was followed by pseudo-Eucherius ("Comm. in Gen." in P.L., L, 893), Isidore ("Quæst. ex V. et N. T." in P.L., XXXV, 2213), Alcuin ("Interr. et respons. in Gen." in P.L., C, 515), Scotus Eriugena ("De divis. natur." in P.L., CXXII, 439), Rupertus ("De Trinit. et oper. ejus" in P.L., CLXVII, 199), and Abelard ("Expos. in Hex." in P.L., CLXXVIII, 731). In the sixteenth century, too, Cajetan and Melchior Cano adhered to the view of a simultaneous creation (cf. "Loc. theol.", Salamanca, 1563). In the following centuries this allegorical interpretation developed into two main branches."
Interesting indeed! Thank you for sharing!
DeleteGod bless,
---Introibo
George, I am with you my friend. You "get it." Stay with it because you are on the right road. This is not the first time Introibo has displayed his faith in the things of this world over the things of the spirit and I've called him out on it in the past. Correction Introibo: Science and true faith are enemies but true science and faith are not.
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me. Before becoming an attorney, I taught science in New York City and I hold a Masters degree in Science. Tell me the difference between "science" and "real science." What you want to believe is real science and what the peer-reviewed research says is just plain (or false) science?
DeletePope St Pius X didn't hold the same view as you. He left the question open. See also the excellent comment regarding St Augustine left by Caillin above.
As far as "putting faith in the things of this world," Scripture clearly tells us that the world (created by God) leads to Him so that atheists are without excuse.
As St Paul writes,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
See Romans 1: 18-20.
---Introibo
I don't understand how having an opposing opinion is "displaying faith in the World over God"
ReplyDeleteCalm down bro you're jumping the gun a little.(no offense)
I second Anonymous' statement above. If the Traditionalists would show a little bit more charity with each other instead of being so critical of one another over "opinions", they may actually be able to get some important things done like focusing on, exposing and combatting the errors of the Vatican II sect.
DeleteAllow me to explain. The devil is the master of this world and we know his goals. Apparently we all don't know his tools and easily become influenced by them. Music, media, and science are some of his greatest works. Today science tells us that a man is a woman and because it is in a text book kids grow up believing it. The world is billions of years old and that is not incompatible with scripture? We supposedly evolved as a species over billions of years and that is not incompatible with creation? We need birth control because the world is overpopulated? These are all allegedly scientific facts. No wonder kids become atheists by the time they reach the 8th grade. As a traditional Catholic I am bothered by people who rely to much on their education and who flaunt their degrees and professions. Education is wonderful but we should not forget that we only know what we are taught. Just because something belongs to a curriculum doesn't mean it is true, even if the whole world believes it. Sometimes education makes us arrogant. Education is controlled by powers of men who benefit from us "knowing" their "truths." From pharmacy to history, it is often the case our "advancements" in knowledge are not compatible with the traditional Catholic Church. I don't know how George feels but I suspect he feels as I do, that there is and has been a great antichrist conspiracy at work for a very long time leading to where we are today.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to point out some errors:
Delete1. The abuse of music and media are evil, not their proper use. Certainly the beautiful Catholic Hymns and Gregorian Chant are not "the work of Satan." The media which carried Fr. DePauw's Mass in the dark days just after Vatican II when very few could attend a real Mass was a spiritual gift for many. Science, properly understood from pseudo-science, tells us about God's wonderful Creation. Are the medical advances and the very Internet which you use to disseminate your ideas, to be spurned as the "scientific work of Satan"?
2. "The world is billions of years old and that is not incompatible with scripture?"
Not if "day" means a period of indefinite time as Pope ST. Pius X decreed was a distinct possibility.
3." Today science tells us that a man is a woman and because it is in a text book kids grow up believing it."
Science teaches the truth---you are biologically male or female---period. It is the government and their politically correct agenda putting in schools.
4. "We supposedly evolved as a species over billions of years and that is not incompatible with creation?"
Not if Genesis is partly allegorical, and Pope Pius XII allowed for such a possibility.
5. "We need birth control because the world is overpopulated?" There are many scientists that dispute this; there is no consensus--and many scientists admit they are following more of a political than scientific agenda on this one!
6. "Education is wonderful but we should not forget that we only know what we are taught. Just because something belongs to a curriculum doesn't mean it is true, even if the whole world believes it."
Correct. However, when top experts publish there findings in peer reviewed journals, it is open to replication, critique, and acceptance, rejection or modification. That's how we make progress
7. "Education is controlled by powers of men who benefit from us "knowing" their "truths."
Unsupported and gratuitous assertion. Let me ask you: Would you go to a "doctor" with no medical school training to diagnose and cure you? How about a "lawyer" with no law school training giving you legal advice on a serious matter? How about a priest with a valid ordination but no seminary training? Would you trust his advice in the Confessional? Could you be certain he knows how to validly administer the Sacraments? Seems like lots of people depend on the education of professionals and ignore them to their detriment.
8. "From pharmacy to history, it is often the case our "advancements" in knowledge are not compatible with the traditional Catholic Church."
Not one bona fide advancement in knowledge is incompatible with Catholic dogma. God is the author of all truths, so how could He contradict Himself? Unfortunately, some people don't understand either the theology and/or the advancements made.
---Introibo
Yes, I agree with you, Anonymous. That the educational system is part of the Antichrist conspiracy is scarcely even debatable.
DeleteJust my 2 cents, but I think the majority of the problems with the "educational system" is the liberal teachers and professors who pervert and subvert scientific knowledge in order to indoctrinate the students with their own liberal agendas.
DeleteYou didn't understand me Introibo. I didn't say advancement in knowledge is incompatible with Catholic dogma. Advancement in knowledge is only incompatible with dogma when it is not true. Harm is done when Catholics attempt to reconcile fake science with faith. For example, if human life as we know it today is the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection then you we should throw out the book of Genesis.
DeleteJoann---I agree.
DeleteAnonymous---Please answer this ONE question: If the universe being billions of years old discredits Genesis, why wasn't the idea condemned by Pope St Pius X?
The saintly pontiff saw that parts of Genesis could be allegorical. Only if you believe as a Protestant fundamentalist must you read Genesis as you do. Pope Pius XII allowed discussion on the evolution of the body. He saw things the same as Pope St Pius X.
You will only accept a LITERAL rendition of Genesis---and this is not the teaching of the Church which is willing to admit that parts might be allegorical.
---Introibo
Why didn't St. Pius X condemn the idea of a universe billions of years old? Probably human weakness under tremendous pressure. Who knows? Whatever the reason, the 20th Century Church's failure to uphold the faith of the fathers has helped the rise of atheism.
DeleteThe rise of atheism was checked by the Church until the Great Apostasy when She was driven underground. You believe in a Church that can teach error. If a billions of years old universe discredits Genesis, the Church taught error by leaving the question open. People can believe that which--according to you---opposes Sacred Scripture. This would St Pius both no Saint and no pope like Wotyla.
DeleteThe Big Bang and the cosmological arguments it engenders has helped bring many to faith in God.
I don't know if you're a Feeneyite, but you certainly think as one (I.e., we only need to believe infallible pronouncements, and only our version of them. I will interpret the Fathers and the "plain meaning" of the Bible).
---Introibo
Do I believe in a church that can teach error? Well, let's start with the fact that the Church taught Geocentrism for 1700 years, condemning non-believers as heretics and then changed its mind later. You would say the Church taught error but not officially. So, are you saying Pius X was exempt from a similar error? I'm also curious as to what you think God was doing for billions of years before he decided to make whatever life form eventually evolved into man and woman.
DeleteThe Church never officially taught geocentrism. See my post of 10/24/16, "Galileo, The Papacy, And Modern Science." It was considered a "probable opinion" given the science of the day, nothing more. I'm surprised you'd bring up an old Protestant canard used to discredit the Church.
DeleteWhat was God doing? Guiding the whole process in His Infinite wisdom. Why did God choose to create that way? He chooses as He Wills. Why do small children suffer with cancer? Can't God achieve His plans another way? These are questions we can never fully comprehend, but we have Faith that God does what is best even though we may not understand.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord."
(See Isaiah 55: 8)
---Introibo
Also, as to Pope Pius X, your analogy to the Galileo case is inapposite. All he did was allow both positions (of a young and old universe) to be open for discussion. If, however, the idea of an old universe would undermine the truth of Scripture, he could NOT allow it as a possibility without teaching error. The Church never condemned heliocentrism. As I wrote in a previous post referenced above about Galileo:
DeleteWe are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science. Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See.
---Introibo
I am with George R. on this one. So the perfidious scientists tell us the earth is Billions of years old and the Church was deceiving the whole world for eighteen hundred years until Darwin saved us from fundamentalism. I trust the modern scientists as much as Elias trusted the priests of Baal.
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
DeleteIt is an open issue, so you may hold that opinion.
---Introibo
In my research over the last few decades,one conclusion is inescapable.
ReplyDeleteWhat leads me to believe in this evidence even more is I can't even talk about this subject matter without being anti-semite.
To find out who rules over you,discover who you aren't allowed to criticize.
At last someone said it on this blog. I agree wholeheartedly with you Anonymous 5:02 PM. Nobody criticizes the chosen people.
DeleteHave you commented on the correct blog? I have no idea what your comment means, how it relates to the topic, or what Jewish people have to do with this discussion.
Delete---Introibo
Anonymous @6:37
DeleteEnlighten me---what do Jewish people have to do with this topic?
---Introibo
Beats me ask anonymous 5:02. I just agreed with what was written. Lol.
DeleteOK,so I shouldve been more specific,my fault & I stand corrected.
DeleteMy point is the overwhelming amount of people behind evolution & science replacing Christianity have been Jewish.This is an undeniable fact and its not meant to castigate or insult every Jewish person on Earth.
It doesn't matter but my wife was raised Jewish.I don't hate Jews nor do I wish harm on them.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for yet another interesting, helpful and totally lucid comment.
I have personally, looked at the subject this way:
The essential point and message of Genesis is that God created all things, including Man. This is de fidei.
HOW (in what manner/method) He created Man is open to legitimate discussion and investigation.
He might have done it in either of two ways:
i. He created a stage, (universe, Earth, plants, animals, etc.) He then created Adam de novo and placed him on this stage. This is what I believe and is actually what Genesis says. (Creation.)
ii. He created the stage and caused the evolution of a creature eventually anthropoid. Then, at a specific moment, he created a soul and placed it into the anthropoid, which in that instant, became a Man. (Evolution.)The difference between animals and humans is the possession of a soul. Amoebas do not have souls. We can leave it to science to continue grappling with the truth of evolutionary theory. Evolution across species/genera has yet to be proven.
Either method is possible. All we really need to know and believe is that God created Man.
Well said Dr. Lamb! You are right on target! Thanks for your (always) thoughtful comments.
Delete---Introibo
Peter, what you are saying is the scriptures could be allegories and it took the Church until the 20th century to figure it out- thanks to science. Very well, but this seems like a slippery slope towards atheism. The Gospels speak of Jesus's miracles but were they allegorical too? Just stories to make a point? This is the dilemma we face when science holds the answers to scriptures and many modernist Catholics believe just that. I, on the other hand, believe we have been lied to by the scientific establishment. Naturalism is the new religion. Just my two cents.
DeleteWhat Dr. Lamb says is the truth of the Church and in no way "leads to atheism." Here are the authoritative words of Pope Leo XIII:
Delete".If dissension should arise between them [science and scripture], here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.' To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to." in Providentissimus Deus (1893) #18.
St Augustine himself always came back to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis in regards to Creation. See comment of Caillin quoting the the Catholic Encyclopedia
---Introibo
Thank you for quoting Leo XIII.Maybe people can see this was church teaching 2 centuries ago!!
DeleteThere can be no doubt that Adam was a real, historical person by whom sin entered the world. THAT Adam existed is not open to discussion. HOW Adam was formed is another matter. All Traditionalists must reject as false any theory which reduces Adam to mythological status or which claims all humans did not descend from one pair of humans; namely Adam and Eve. However, it is possible that God prepared the body of Adam over time and intervened in the process, so the body of Adam is not the result of generation from a brute beast. This possibility was given us by Pope Pius XII, nothing more.
ReplyDelete---Introibo
Wonderful article, Mr. D. (that is what I shall call you). As a newcomer to the sedevacantist position, I treasure your blog. I wonder what you think about the following quote from Pope Pius:Pius XII, who has the following to say on this subject, in Humani Generis, #38:
Delete“In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament…. [T]he first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes”.
Also, I have a few other questions to ask you but they are off topic. Is it okay if i ask them here or in your ongoing new posts? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Pope Pius was (of course) on target. The exact bounds are fuzzy because of the Great Apostasy. I stay the middle course always careful to conform to papal teaching yet not fearing to go where science leads within permissible boundaries.
DeleteCongratulations on coming to the One True Church my friend! If you have more than a couple of questions that are off topic, please send me your email address in the comments. I will not publish it. I will then contact you from an anonymous email address to protect my ID. The subject shall read "Hello from Introibo Ad Altare Dei."
You can then send me back your queries and I will respond as soon as I can.
God bless,
---Introibo
I wonder if Adam and Eve had legs and arms? According to the idea that we are to accept both scripture and science as true then Adam and Eve could have been created as fish or even tadpoles or other and as you wrote "...God prepared the body over time and intervened in the process." So, Adam and Even were infallibly real - but it took about 60 billion years for them to get feet and grow hair. So says science and the popes agree. A mixed bag of secular education and scripture makes even hardcore sedevacantists into modernists at heart. This is why I wrote earlier that the young who grow up learning junk science are already formed with skepticism against religion. The Scriptures are clear on how God created man - from the dust of the earth and he breathed life into him.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have written shows culpable misunderstand. Adam's body could have been prepared by progressive development over time. It was not Adam. The body Adam was to receive had been prepared over time and then God intervened to ensure the body was not simply generated by a brute beast. The fully formed human body then received its immortal soul from God and became Adam.
DeleteThe problem you have is with the Church, not me. This teaching is permissible under Pope Pius XII.
Children are more likely to become atheists when they are told Creation was less than 10,000 years ago and they MUST believe that despite carbon dated rocks having much older ages. Science and Faith don't conflict. Just wrong interpretations of one and/or the other.
---Introibo
Ahh yes the carbon dated rocks that come from the same box as the moon rocks - Lucky Charms.
ReplyDeleteYes! Not only are they "magically delicious," you've uncovered the truth about the moon landing being faked, the Earth is flat, and carbon dating is the work of Satan!
DeleteYou've got Dawkins, Dennet and Harris on the run.
---Introibo
Ok so I'm clear on how your mind works let me sum up your beliefs. As a sedevacantist you believe the devil overcame the Roman Catholic Church and imposed a fake end times counter church that has deceived the whole world except a handful of remnant churches, instituted fake sacraments, fake priesthood, fake doctrines, and practically the whole world is deceived and on the road to hell....but......the devil and his minions left sciences and the education systems alone.
DeleteYou're far from "clear on how my mind works," so please don't quit your day job to become a "psychologist."
Delete1. The Roman Catholic Church cannot be overcome. She is Indefectiblle.
2. Due to the Apostasy of Roncalli and the majority of bishops, the Church has been driven underground.
3. The age of the Earth and the creation of Man's body was left up to the sciences BEFORE the Great Apostasy by Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII. They did not see these scientific possibilities as incompatible with the Faith.
You however, do see a problem where popes did not. Who needs a Magisterium when you have yourself. If you want to believe a literal Genesis account, you can, but do not denigrate those of us who opt for the opposing opinion. Your position is dangerously close to a kind of Descartes--like solipsism whereby "how do you know the external world is not a product of a demon?" Descartes rejected that thesis; you seem to revel in that fantasy. The advent of space flight, the Internet, and modern medical cures are the work of Satan? Please.
---Introibo
The bible mentions a great apostasy & the church went through a similar period with Arianism.
DeleteWhat we are experiencing today is consistent with Catholic history.
Introibo - This question is off topic, but was wondering your thoughts on GMO's in food?
ReplyDeleteThere are thousands of studies that show that the foods are as safe as non-genetically modified foods. However, I'm leery of them and will avoid them as much as possible.
Delete---Introibo
Introibo - Do you happen to know who was the developer of the GMO's and/or how the food got so infected with them? I read where virtually all soy and corn are now from GMO's. I think this is scary stuff, no matter how much it is claimed they are safe. (Man trying to play God).
DeleteJoann,
DeleteI honestly don't know. I do share your concern, which is why I try and avoid such foods.
---Introibo
Thanks for the quote from P X, I never heard that before. It seems that it is possible to be a Catholic who believes that God used millions if not billions of years to create us. That time period is not relevant to Him since he is outside time, our creation would only be relational to the sun's movement I guess.
ReplyDeleteBut we would have to Catholicize evolution. It would have to simply be a slow motion creation. Didnt Chesterton haves something like a Frog slowly turning into a prince? Haha!
Would the progression of "animals" be perfect in themselves? At what point would their change be perfect? Are cats perfect (snort). But seriously, why would God make a creature, then slowly change it from its essence? Because thats what it would have to be.
Are we still evolving? Is the addition of will and reason just accidental to our physical bodies, could elephants have been given will and reasons?
Doesn't evolution put a distance between God and creation? If we are constantly adjusting to the environment, isn't the environment and this so called mutation mechanism really the indirect creator? Genesis says God formed us.
I think its Sungenis who brings up the problem of the Immaculate conception and evolution. I remeber understanding it when I first read it but I would have to find a better summary than this:
St. Maximilian also recognized that the Blessed Virgin Mary could only be the Immaculate Conception because Adam and Eve were special creations—and that the title the Immaculate Conception refuted theistic evolutionism which holds that Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived in the womb of an evolved chimpanzee or that their bodies evolved through a process of hundreds of millions of years of death, deformity and disease.
@Unknown,
DeleteYes, evolution as it stands would need to be revised or “Catholicized” as you say. As a devoted cat lover, yes, they are purr-fect!
And remember that although we need DOGma, you cannot even spell Catholic without C-A-T! You should know that from your CATechism!
—-Introibo
i always wondered (a theory i read in a comment in a semitrad blog that i stopped reading because it sadly hates sedes) if it could be argued that the bodies of Adam and Eve were made of previously existing DNA, a sort of molecular "dust", therefore harmonizing Scripture and Pius XII.
Deleteslow motion creation sounds good too, insofar as it can be argued that humans were started by Adam and Eve, the perfect two starting homo sapiens sapiens bodies imbued with souls, intellect, will, and reason (and an accumulation of DNA to spread around, thus making intrafamily reproduction possible and permissible for a while), unlike other hominids. animals may have evolved but since the Lord created us and gave us stewardship of Creation none currently can best us, why do you think ecologists exist?
(as an aside. that is why it could also be argued it is wrong to experiment on genetics to try to "best God" and "improve" species whether plant animal and human. meaning, not just make resistant to disease or better for farming or other minor traits, but outright metamorphosise them into harmful poisons (plants and animals for consumption) dangerous creatures (animals such as dangerous breeds of dogs), soulless automatons (humans perhaps?). specially as the process includes discarding/killing undesired "results" aka poor unbaptized souls in the case of humans. the chinese communists (w/western funding i bet, everyone is in on it) have already experimented on altering human genetic code in unborn children. it is only a matter of time.)
put it simply, whether of the literal young earth or the agustinian old earth or even "slow creation" schools, one has to admit such theistic evolution has ceased to be a factor after our creation, after which Our Lord rested. if we try to deny the Creator with atheism, and attempt to replace him through transhumanism and other errors, then of course a punishment from Our Lord may be coming, may be even the Last One. pray the Church stays strong.