Any young earth creationists out there?

[Glark]

Let me reiterate, as you seemed to have completely missed the point I was trying to make: The Catechism says that the Genesis creation account is written in figurative/symbolic language. It this true? No, it isn’t; it is a half-truth, because said account can be interpreted figuratively OR literally. Is it misleading? Yes, it certainly is, because it gives the reader the false impression that said account can only be read in non-literal sense.

But woe to me for pointing out this flaw!

 

[Glark]

I’m not a sedevacantist, but I do understand where they’re coming from.

The parts of the Catechism that relate to the origins of man and the Genesis creation account were obviously written by very biased theistic evolutionists who succeeded in presenting only their side of the story. I suspect they considered the literal-creationist “six days” view so contemptibly ignorant and unscientific that it didn’t even deserve a mention. The Catechism gives no indication whatsoever that the faithful can believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and worse, it misleads the reader into thinking the creation account is not to be read literally at all. Such underhanded tactics are not the work of the Catholic Church that I belong to.

So in effect, there two Catholic Churches, each operating under the same roof. One is the true traditional Church, the other is a corrupt, Modernist imposter. The Catechism is thankfully mostly the former, but it is unfortunately tainted by some of the latter.

 

[Glark]

Actually, that’s not what it says. The statement it makes is much more precise than that. You might want to go back and re-read it and learn what it really says.

That’s not what I meant. By “only” I meant the Catechism mentions that the Genesis creation account is written in figurative language, but it fails to mention that it can ALSO be interpreted literally. Therefore the CCC presents a misleading half-truth about how Genesis can be read.

Surprising. I’d think that you’d agree that there are theological truths which “go beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences.”

Are you telling me you haven’t noticed anything amiss in paragraphs 283, 284? What about the parts that implies the theory of evolution is “knowledge” and a scientific “discover”, for example? I mean, since when does a hypothesis qualify as knowledge and a discovery?
And please don’t don’t insult my intelligence by saying #283 doesn’t mention ToE - the wording makes it perfectly clear that the science of Darwinism is included.

 

[Glark]

There are aspects of the Catechism which I don’t agree with either.

That comes as no surprise - a Modernist who has next to no respect for Scripture is certain to also be at odds with many other aspects of the Faith. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

If you post something that is transparently untrue, for the deliberate purpose of misrepresenting someone, then you lie. That’s what a lie is. That’s what liars do. I don’t do it.

If I have misrepresented you, it could be as a result of me being dazed and confused, or my stupidity - ie, I got my wires crossed and made a mistake. Apart from that, there are things I say that are tongue-in-cheek and aren’t meant to be taken seriously.
Speaking of which, I know your accusations of lying aren’t serious, because if they were, you would say, “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!”

 

[Glark]

Hello Bruce. I interpret it this way: The “six days” of creation begin in Genesis 1:3 with the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light…’” (this pattern is repeated in each of the following days, which all begin with “And God said …”). This being so, the “heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1) were created BEFORE the six days of creation. So in effect, there were two stages of creation - (Stage 1) the creation of “the heavens and the earth”, followed by, (Stage 2) the six days.

Furthermore, if Day 1 began with verse 1, it would present a pattern of darkness-light-darkness-light, which is not how we understand a day (24 hours) to be. The other five Days in Genesis 1 present a pattern of light-darkness-light, which is the equivalent of dawn-night-dawn … which makes perfect sense with respect to our concept of the length of one day. But if the beginning of Day 1 is “Let there be light”, we are presented with the same pattern of light-darkness-light (24 hours) as the other Days.

… making the current age of the earth since Adam about 7000 years

Liturgical Reading of Midnight Mass
Solemnity of the Nativity
From the Roman Martyrology:
“In the twenty-fourth day of the month of December; In the year five-thousand one-hundred and ninety-nine from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … JESUS CHRIST … was born in Bethlehem of Judah of the Virgin Mary, made man …”

Therefore, “God created the heavens and the earth” 5199 + 2018 = 7217 years ago. I disagree with this (as mentioned above), in that I believe the “six days” of creation occurred about 7217 years ago. The earth was created at some time prior to that.

It’s interesting that many Jewish publications describe this year (2018) as 5778

 

[Glark]

362 – The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being

I find this extract from the Catechism confusing. If the description is “symbolic”, does that mean the Scripture is not meant to be interpreted literally? If so, surely that contradicts what the Church has taught in the past.

 

[Glark]

4: Did Jesus say “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates if hell shall not prevail against it.”?

Jesus promised that the Church would never be destroyed by the forces of evil. However, He didn’t say the Church would not experience serious corruption - a scenario which is prophesied in various places in Scripture. For example,

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the APOSTASY comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction” - 2Thess 2

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sounding teaching, but having itching ears they accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” - 2Tim 4:2-4

“And it was given unto him (the Beast) to make war with the saints, and to conquer them” - Revelation 13:7. (If the saints are conquered, that means the Church is in some sense conquered … yet, as Jesus promised, the Church is not destroyed.)

8: Does allowing evolution prevent you from believing six-day Creation?

What makes you think the faithful can believe in a literal six-days of creation? The Catechism says the Genesis creation account is written in figurative and symbolic language. Where does it state or imply (or even give the slightest hint) that a literal interpretation is possible?

 

[Glark]

God is especially evident in cauliflowers.

 

[mVitus]

What makes you think the faithful can believe in a literal six-days of creation?

Um, common knowledge?

And a simple yes/no question: Is the Church heretical?

 

[Glark]

Exactly. What happened to that race of soulless but intelligennt humans that Adam supposedly came from?

 

[Glark]

Imagine a lawyer geting up in court and claiming a law based on “common knowledge”!

A Catholic ought to be able to use the CCC as a faithful and comprehensive guide to what a Catholic can believe, yet it states that Genesis is written in figurative language. Where is the part that informs an uninformed reader (a youth, for example, or a newcomer to the faith) that a literal interpretation is also permitted?

The Catholic Church that I belong to is not heretical.

 

[Glark]

How come one can call a white man a “gorilla”, but calling a black man the same thing will likely get one charged with some kind of crime against humanity? And how come “white trash” is an acceptable term, but saying “black trash” is anathema?

 

[Glark]

But black skin would absorb more heat than white skin, so a cold environment should favour black skin, as the body will be slightly warmer.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

Hello Bruce. I interpret it this way: The “six days” of creation begin in Genesis 1:3 with the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light…’” (this pattern is repeated in each of the following days, which all begin with “And God said …”). This being so, the “heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1) were created BEFORE the six days of creation. So in effect, there were two stages of creation - (Stage 1) the creation of “the heavens and the earth”, followed by, (Stage 2) the six days.

Furthermore, if Day 1 began with verse 1, it would present a pattern of darkness-light-darkness-light, which is not how we understand a day (24 hours) to be. The other five Days in Genesis 1 present a pattern of light-darkness-light, which is the equivalent of dawn-night-dawn … which makes perfect sense with respect to our concept of the length of one day. But if the beginning of Day 1 is “Let there be light”, we are presented with the same pattern of light-darkness-light (24 hours) as the other Days.

… making the current age of the earth since Adam about 7000 years

Liturgical Reading of Midnight Mass

Solemnity of the Nativity

From the Roman Martyrology:

“In the twenty-fourth day of the month of December; In the year five-thousand one-hundred and ninety-nine from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … JESUS CHRIST … was born in Bethlehem of Judah of the Virgin Mary, made man …”

Therefore, “God created the heavens and the earth” 5199 + 2018 = 7217 years ago. I disagree with this (as mentioned above), in that I believe the “six days” of creation occurred about 7217 years ago. The earth was created at some time prior to that.

It’s interesting that many Jewish publications describe this year (2018) as 5778

Glark,
Each day in Genesis evening and morning day 1 or 2 or 3, etc. The Jews interpreted the day as starting with the evening and this was true at least until after the resurrection. The day starts with the darkness so your premise is incorrect. The Jewish dating and the reading at the midnight mass on Christmas both have incorrect dating see the link I gave earlier, for the why of my dating system.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[Richca]

I think most on here readily recognize the necessity of monogenism, insofar as all of humanity stems from the first human couple

But this is simply not addressing what some on here are asserting: That Adam and Eve must be specially created by God. Over and over and over again, it is the soul that must be specifically created and infused: The biological development of the body is allowed. It is even compatible to affirm multiple organisms that had the human body but were not human.

What is your response by further quoting the encyclical supposed to signify?

Although, subsequent popes after Pope Pius XII and Humani Generis may have spoken more explicitly about some kind of possible evolutionary development of the human body, I’m not sure a possible evolutionary development of a full human body inhabited by an irrational animal is what Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis had in mind. For one thing, an irrational animal in a human body does not make sense. Only humans with a rational soul can be in human bodies. Accordingly, I think Pope Pius XII doesn’t use the term ‘body’ but ‘pre-existent and living matter.’ Obviously, the pope was aware of what the bible says as well as the literal interpretation of the creation of Adam from the dust or clay of the earth that the entire Tradition of the Church held. In fact, in a speech the pope gave to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1941, he repeats the traditional doctrine of the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from the side of Adam:

“…also man was fashioned out of dust from the soil and God breathed into his nostrils a breath of life and thus man became a living being…Only from man could there come another man who would then call him father and ancestor; and the helpmate given by God to the first man came from man himself and is flesh from his flesh, made into a woman and called such because she came from man.”

In the same speech, the pope mentions the role the natural sciences may be able to provide concerning the origin of man:

‘The multiple research be it in paleontology or of biology and morphology, on the problems concerning the origins of man have not, as yet, ascertained anything with great clarity and certainty. We must leave it to the future to answer the question, if indeed science will one day be able, enlightened and guided by revelation, to give certain and definitive results concerning a topic of such importance.’

It seems the mention of the natural sciences in the same speech wherein the pope reiterated the traditional doctrine of the Church on the immediate creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, may be that the pope thinks the natural sciences will only confirm, if indeed science will one day be even able, the traditional doctrine. I personally don’t think it is possible that this question can be answered by the natural sciences especially if in fact God immediately created the bodies of Adam and Eve. Creation is not something that can be investigated by the natural sciences directly, but it can give indirect evidence of creation and this is maybe what the pope had in mind.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Back to Humani Generis where the pope doesn’t use the word ‘body’ but the phrase ‘pre-existent and living matter.’ The pope here may have in mind that God could have possibly taken a single cell off some ancient primate creature, the skin for example, reworked the DNA and from that cell immediately formed the whole body of Adam from it. Obviously, the infusion of a human soul into the body of some previously existing primate animal and at what period of development of that animal, is going to raise a host of some very difficult, speculative, and delicate questions than the pope wants to involve himself in, if in fact, he even had that in mind. Such speculations on such a delicate issue in an encyclical to the whole Church is probably not appropriate for a pope as the supreme pastor and guardian of the faith.

In the encyclical, the pope writes about various philosophical errors opposed to the faith as well as to what he calls the Church’s own perennial philosophy which is associated with scholastic theology and philosophy as he writes:
‘Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology.’

And then he mentions the surpassing excellence of the doctrine of St Thomas Aquinas:

‘If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy “according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,”[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.’

 

[Richca]

(continued)

In the opening paragraph of this post, I stated ‘For one thing, an irrational animal in a human body does not make sense. Only humans with a rational soul can be in human bodies.’ Indeed, in the philosophy and metaphysics of St Thomas Aquinas, such an idea of an irrational animal in a human body is not possible. The form or soul of an irrational animal possesses a body suited or fitted to its own kind or species. The rational soul or form of human beings is in another order of being and species than the souls or forms of animals and thus requires a certain disposition of the body suited for the infusion of a human soul. Thus, according to the doctrine of St Thomas, prior to the first man, no body of any animal could have been adequately prepared for the infusion of a human soul into it. A human soul can only go with a human body. This is one reason why besides the testimony of scripture itself which for St Thomas is the supreme authority, St Thomas argues for the immediate creation of Adam both as to the body from the slime of the earth and the soul. This he states in the ST, Part I, Q. 91, art. 2.

Obviously, Pope Pius XII was aware of St Thomas’ teaching here in the Summa Theological and I already mentioned the pope’s commendation of St Thomas in the encyclical. This may be another reason why the pope uses the phrase ‘pre-existent and living matter’ and not the word ‘body.’

 

[Richca]

(continued)

The pope also mentions twice the phrase ‘immutable essences.’ The first time in connection with fictitious tenets of evolution:
‘Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.’ (#6)

In #32 of the encyclical, he states:
‘They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux.’ While he doesn’t state evolution here explicitly, he could be making a reference to it here. The interesting thing about the two instances of ‘immutable essences’ is that the concept of ‘immutable essences’ is certainly not Darwinism.

Honestly, I don’t think the pope in this encyclical is making any pitch for evolution or that he even believed in it or the evolution of the human body. I think he actually believed in the immediate creation of Adam’s body from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam’s side as he stated in the speech I noted he gave in 1941 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. There is no reason why Catholicism has to fear true science. Accordingly, it is possible that opening up formally investigation in the Church to the alleged evolution of the human body, the pope was thinking that the science may only confirm though indirectly, if it is possible for it to confirm anything at all in this matter, the traditional teaching of the Church.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Honestly, I don’t think the pope in this encyclical is making any pitch for evolution or that he even believed in it or the evolution of the human body. I think he actually believed in the immediate creation of Adam’s body from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam’s side as he stated in the speech I noted he gave in 1941 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

I agree with you. I think that in 1950, although evolution in general had to be formally recognised, if not positively asserted, it was still possible for knowledgeable, rational people to believe that humans, at least, were sufficiently different from other organisms to have been spontaneously created, and I think Pope Pius XII, and quite probably most cardinals, bishops and other prelates agreed with him.

There is no reason why Catholicism has to fear true science. Accordingly, it is possible that opening up formally investigation in the Church to the alleged evolution of the human body, the pope was thinking that the science may only confirm, if it is possible for it to confirm anything at all in this matter, the traditional teaching of the Church.

And I agree with that too.

But he was wrong.

Since Humani Generis, successive discoveries, both of fossil remains and of course genetics, have made it less and less credible that all humans are descended from a single, exclusive couple. Although Humani Generis has not yet been formally contradicted, successive popes have modified its emphasis, and I do not believe that the majority of the members of the church still believe the “single, exclusive couple” origin of humanity. Adam and Eve are mythological.

However the reason this has not (yet) been formally acknowledged has nothing to do with fossils and genes. It has do to with a dilemma which is an inevitable corollary to such an admission, namely what, if anything, is a soul. This, I believe, is still being considered, but I think that already it is less and less thought of as an object planted in a zygote. Some people are horrified at this, and think that the loss of Adam and Eve will inevitably mean the loss of the Soul, and the collapse of all Redemptive Theology. I myself don’t believe that. I think that theology will continue to enhance and find meaning in science, just as it always has, and that a clearer picture of the ‘soul’ will be more beautiful than ever before. I have no doubt that when a new theological consensus is achieved, probably in the next few years, then a new Humani Generis will be promulgated to explain it.

 

[mVitus]

Imagine a lawyer geting up in court and claiming a law based on “common knowledge”!

A Catholic ought to be able to use the CCC as a faithful and comprehensive guide to what a Catholic can believe, yet it states that Genesis is written in figurative language. Where is the part that informs an uninformed reader (a youth, for example, or a newcomer to the faith) that a literal interpretation is also permitted?

The Catholic Church that I belong to is not heretical.

Show me in the Catechism where it was a Catholic may take a geocentric or flat earth view. Or is it just common knowledge that they can?

You agree the Church is not heretical. So look at Humani Generis and all the consensus of the bishops and recent popes that,on a matter of faith, evolution is not contrary to Christian faith.