Contending For The Faith---Part 8

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.

A Matter of Time

In last month's "Contending For The Faith" post, I heard from more than one commenter about the so-called Kolbe Center, and how they assert the literal interpretation of "day" in the Biblical Hexameron (i.e., the six days of Creation as described in the first chapter of Genesis) as being of 24 hours in duration is the only correct one. (See kolbecenter.org). 

Please feel free to acquaint yourself with their writings and videos. There is also some material from them posted in the comments section of last month's post. The Kolbe Center's basic contention is that the literal interpretation of Genesis was consistently taught by the Church. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Traditionalist Catholic holding the literal view, it is not the exclusive view allowed by the Church, as the Kolbe Center erroneously teaches. (They claim the view that the "days" in Genesis could be a "certain period of time" longer than 24 hours is "scarcely tenable"). 

In this post, I will set forth the teaching of the Church and, by implication, the errors of the Kolbe Center. I can't help but wonder why any Traditionalist would get information from a Vatican II sect organization of laymen. You know their theology is going to be way off, and interestingly, they almost never cite to anything post-Vatican II, while they acknowledge the Robber Council and its "popes." Nevertheless, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, and I won't commit the Genetic fallacy, i.e., something is wrong simply because of its source. The Center bases its argument almost exclusively on theology, so my reply will be theological not scientific. The writings of the Center, both theological and scientific, are so poor as to make me shake my head in disbelief. The theology is almost entirely the private musings of laymen on cherry-picked quotes of papal documents, decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and the Fathers of the Church. In this way, they remind me of Feeneyites. 

The science espoused by the Center is equally bad. It made the former science teacher in me wince. Luckily, I need not go there. Ironically, while we have more technology than ever, scientific illiteracy is at an all-time high. I wish I had a dime for every time someone told me a  "scientific theory" is a hunch and not to be believed until it becomes a "scientific law." In science, a theory is the current best explanation of something, while a law is what always happens in our experience and we can make predictions based upon it (e.g., the law of gravity). While not arguing with them on a scientific level, I will have something to say about science at the end. 

What follows below is an exposition of the Church's teaching on the Hexameron.

The Decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

The problematic of Biblical hermeneutics and scientific advances came to the forefront when certain Catholic clerics began to question how to interpret the "days" of Genesis given the findings that indicate a universe billions of years old. Must the Hebrew word yom be interpreted as a literal 24 hour day, or can it be a certain "period of time" (as the word itself indicates) which can be much longer than 24 hours? The Pontifical Biblical Commission ("PBC"), the decisions of which are binding in conscience, investigated that question (and others relating to Genesis) during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X. 

On June 30, 1909, the PBC issued responses to eight questions posed. All were solemnly approved by Pope St. Pius X and ordered to be published. The responses to questions 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are on point:

Question I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: IN THE NEGATIVE.

Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved? -- Reply: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: IN THE NEGATIVE.

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as 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 exegetes? -- Reply: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  

(Emphasis mine). 

Now, there are all kinds of assertions by modern laymen as to how these decisions are to be understood, with no amount of mental gymnastics. However, what any layman (including myself) has to say on this matter is irrelevant. Let's see what the approved theologians taught. According to theologian Tanquerey:

Thesis: In the first chapter of Genesis the intimate constitution of things and the complete order of creation are not described in a scientific manner; instead there is a popular-historical representation which was adapted and accommodated to the understanding of man at that time. This thesis is certain according to the reply of the Pontifical Biblical Commission...

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909, taught that "in the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author..to teach the complete order of creation in a scientific way, but rather to give to his people a popular knowledge...which was suited to the understanding and discernment of man." (See Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], pgs. 364-366; Emphasis in original). 

Therefore, the depiction of the six days of Creation is not scientific, but a popular-historical representation accommodated to the understanding of humanity at that time. This was not some Modernist novelty (as if Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism, would allow such to be propagated!), but was taught by the eminent theologians of the 19th century also. 

Theologian Wilhelm teaches: Again, the writer's intention of making the Creation week the model of the human week may have led him to give to the periods of the former the same number and name as those borne by the periods of the latter...[Theologians] Pianciani, Hettinger, Holzammer, and Reusch, place the catastrophes within the six days of Creation, but take the "days" to be long periods.

(See A Manual of Catholic Theology, [1890], pg. 310; Emphasis mine).

Theologian Hunter writes: The Church has given us no declaration on the meaning of the Mosaic account of the Six Days of Creation; we are therefore left to make out the meaning for ourselves, if we care to investigate the matter. This inquiry is the work of criticism, and at the outset we cannot but express our surprise at the rashness of those who think that they can see at a glance and with certainty the full meaning of a record of this kind written thousands of years ago for the use of a people, concerning whose habits of thought and familiar turns of language so little is known. (See Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, [1896], pg. 377; Emphasis mine). 

Therefore, the Church teaches that the first chapter of Genesis is not teaching science or making a scientific account of what transpired. Numerous approved theologians taught that the "days" of Genesis to be long periods of time. On January 16, 1948, the Secretary of the PBC sent a reaffirmation regrding the 1909 decrees to Cardinal Suhard. In pertinent part it reads:

 The question of the literary forms of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is far more obscure and complex. These literary forms do not correspond to any of our classical categories and cannot be judged in the light of the Greco-Latin or modern literary types. It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed. If it is agreed not to see in these chapters history in the classical and modern sense, it must be admitted also that known scientific facts do not allow a positive solution of all the problems which they present. The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves and even their notion of historical truth the requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgements all the material of the paleontological and historical, epigraphical and literary sciences. It is only in this way that there is hope of attaining a clearer view of the true nature of certain narratives in the first chapters of Genesis. To declare a priori that these narratives do not contain history in the modern sense of the word might easily be understood to mean that they do not contain history in any sense, whereas they relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, the fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as well as a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. In the meantime it is necessary to practice patience which is part of prudence and the wisdom of life. This also is inculcated by the Holy Father in the Encyclical already quoted: "No one", he says, "should be surprised that all the difficulties have not yet been clarified or solved. But that is no reason for losing courage or forgetting that in the branches of human study it cannot be otherwise than in nature, where beginnings grow little by little, where the produce of the soil is not gathered except after prolonged labor. There is ground, therefore, for hoping that (these difficulties) which today appear most complicated and arduous, will eventually, thanks to constant effort, admit of complete clarification." (See (AAS [1943] 318; Emphasis mine). 

Praise for Fr. Georges Lemaitre 

Fr. Lemaitre (1894-1966) was the scientist who proposed the hypothesis--now theory--of the Big Bang. It speaks of a universe billions of years old. Father had an earned PhD in mathematics and a second doctorate in physics. In 1927, his proposal of the Big Bang rocked the world. The scientific brilliance of the good Father brought praise from Albert Einstein himself in 1933. The great Fr. Hubert Vecchierello, had this to say about Fr. Lemaitre:

It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaitre, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity — not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring. (See Fr. Hubert Vecchierello, Einstein and Relativity; Lemaitre and the Expanding Universe, [1934], pg. 23).

At the time, the "Steady State Theory" prevailed, claiming that the universe always existed from eternity. When Fr. Lemaitre's Big Bang hypothesis replaced the Steady State Theory, Communists refused to allow the state-run schools to teach it, due to its theistic implications. Under the Steady State, when someone claimed God created the universe, the atheistic Communists could say, "No, the universe was always there." Now, the Big Bang Theory showed a universe that began from a singularity 13.8 billion years ago. All matter, energy, and even space-time itself began at the Big Bang singularity. ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1). 

On October 28, 1936, Pope Pius XI appointed Fr. Lemaitre to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the 1870 Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary. On November 22, 1951, Pope Pius XII publicly praised such advances in science as the Big Bang Theory: “…you who examine and reveal the secrets of nature and, at the same time, teach with the language of figures, formulas and discoveries, ineffaceable harmonies of  the God of infinite wisdom. True science, the more it progresses, the more it discovers God." 

Many times, Father's work, both as a scientist and a priest, was praised by Pope Pius XII. Obviously, two popes had no problem with the days of Genesis being long periods of time. When critics of Father complained his theory was somehow flawed because he wanted to prove creation, the quick witted priest claimed that science need not be supported by the Bible:

Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity. (See Ibid, pg. 24).

The Hexameron and Its Relation to Science and Exegesis

Theologian Pohle teaches:

All true scientists are after a fashion exegetes, and therefore friends, not enemies, of the theologians. Those among them who antagonize revealed religion, have deserted the solid ground of science for moors and fens in which they gleefully chase deceptive will-o-the-wisps. Of course, science has a perfect right to follow her own methods, and the fact that her representatives conduct their researches without constantly trying to square themselves with the Bible does not argue that they mistrust religion or despise Christianity...

Since the true interpretation of the Hexameron with regard to the origin of the universe is uncertain, theologians and scientists are free to adopt whatever theory they prefer, provided only it be reasonable and moderate, and not evidently opposed to Scripture...

We have already averted to the fact that the eminent Bishop of Hippo [St. Augustine] regarded the whole week of the Hexameron as one single moment, and that St. Thomas approved of this interpretation. As the Church has never disowned the teaching of St. Augustine, it cannot fairly be claimed that ecclesiastical Tradition compels us to take the Hebrew yom in the sense of an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. Origen and St. Athanasius anticipated the teaching of St. Augustine. While the Fathers and Scholastics generally preferred to adhere to a literal sense, they never condemned the Augustinian interpretation...Under these circumstances the all but universal consensus of the Fathers and Scholastics in favor of the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative has no binding force.  

(See Dogmatic Theology, [1912], pgs. 98-119; Emphasis mine). 

Therefore, those who argue that the Fathers were morally unanimous in this matter, and have binding force of interpretation, are wrong. St. Augustine considered the "days" of Creation to be a single moment, not 24 hours, and the great Aquinas approved of that teaching. Hence, the amount of time covered by "yom" is not decided by the consensus of the Fathers which binds the faithful. The fact that approved theologians also taught a non-literal "day" is proof that the Fathers had not decided the issue. 

Finally, the basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by 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. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original).

Genesis is concerned with the fact of God as Creator, not the scientific amount of time it took to create.

Is There Scientific Evidence for a Billions of Years Old Universe?

Those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Hexameron argue the Earth/universe is about six thousand (6,000) years old. There is ample evidence of an old Earth/universe. My basic data comes from multiple sources including M. J. Reid, et al. The trigonometric parallax of Cygnus X-1. The Astrophysical Journal, 742:83, 2011. As I always tried to make things as easy to understand as possible for my middle school science students when I taught, I will condense one line of argumentation into terse bullet points:

• The distance to some astronomical objects has been found to be greater than six thousand light years by a very simple method of measurement. (One light year is the distance that light covers in one year at the velocity it goes now.) 

• If light has always been traveling at the same speed, it means it had to leave these objects more than six thousand years ago in order to reach us now. The universe is therefore older than this. Could it be that light went faster in the past? 

• The speed of light is part of the known laws of nature. The laws we know don’t change with time. Still, we could have missed something. Would a given experiment confirming these laws now give the same result if performed six thousand years ago? Indeed, it is possible to check.

•  Every atom or molecule emits a very special kind of light, a kind of signature called “spectral lines.” Theory predicts spectral lines observed now with extreme precision. 

• The spectral lines we observe from remote objects in the universe are exactly the same as those we observe now in the laboratory, which means that atoms and molecules behaved in the same way in space, when they sent light to us. Hydrogen, oxygen, water, and so on had exactly the same properties when they sent their spectral lines to us as they do now. 

• Observations confirm that the laws of nature were the same six thousand years ago (and more) as they are now. The speed of light was therefore the same then, when light left these objects. This is not an assumption; it is an observation. 

• Unless light was miraculously created in transit, it had to be up there more than six thousand years ago in order to reach us now.

Therefore, the world/universe is much older than 6,000 years.

Conclusion

The manifest weight of the credible evidence makes a very strong case for an old universe created by God 13.8 billion years ago. The Church has never made a definitive decision in the matter, so if anyone wants to believe the "days" of creation are 24 hours each and the Earth/universe is 6,000 years old, they may do so. I only object when those, like the Kolbe Center, use disingenuous theological arguments (based on private interpretation) to make the literal interpretation seem binding, when such is not the case.