Tradition and Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshringsell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshringsell

Guest
Have become slightly disillusioned upon learning that traditional Catholic teaching believes in a fundamentalist, literal reading of Genesis - creation in a literal week etc. I cannot accept such a blatantly false reading of Genesis, both because in its content it is clearly not a scientific textbook, and because of empirical scientific observation. Was this ever dogma? I am a traditional Catholic and keep seeing online people who deny evolution and the Big Bang, as if when properly understood these have anything to say about the faith.
 
where did you get that idea, read the catchechsim. the catholic church believes in no such thing.

we are all catholics, we are not one type or another, what we believe is consistent across all catholicism in the latin rite of the roman catholic church
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I am reading the wrong things - in traditionalist circles all I hear is anti-scientific nonsense from centuries ago
 
Fortunately for us we aren’t pigeonholed into only one interpretation of the book of genesis, no matter how loud and angry certain traditionalists will be about that
 
yep you heard wrong, or if anyone is proclaiming a fundamentalist view of the first 11 chapters of the Bible, they are in error and not in agreement with what Rome teaches.

satan is working overtime on you and attempting to destroy your faith
 
The sad thing about this apart from the fact that it is so incompatible with reason, is that it takes away from the poetic beauty of the document, which displays truth not in an empirical, scientific sense, but in an ontological, theological sense
 
Last edited:
I’m not getting into this But satan is a liar and he hates Genesis as he is shown for what he is a liar and manipulator.
Evolution is dead long dead it has not nor ever had proof, it is a doctrine of the enlightenment movement to fool men into believing God is a liar/not real
There is mountains of proof not conjecture or manipulation or presumption but facts that show no change in fossils. the rest is only made up crap.
I Heard that some Catholics even believe in a literal transubstantiation of Bread and wine, and science tells us clearly that is not possible but hey who are ya going to believe God or Satan/fundamental high priests of science. With your thinking you can’t believe Jesus is really present or rose from the dead for that matter so why should Catholics follow liars who fit everything into the Evo box even when it clearly doesn’t fit?
 
@sevenswords If you believe that evolution somehow disproves or negates God, I doubt you’ve understood either the theory of evolution or the classical theistic view of God - in charity
 
Last edited:
I just told you Evolution is not real so how could it disprove God? unless you didn’t know God and thought that all knowledge should come from men/high priests and why in the name of all that is holy would you believe in some fairy tale wrote by sheep herders thousands of years ago?
There is a reason why Atheism is the fastest growing religion in the world.
 
Don’t make Catholic theology be a matter of ignorance. That scandalizes those who are more learned. Which seems to be the case with the OP. If empirical evidence is certain on a matter of science and a theological notion is negated by it, a good theologian puts aside the theology and seeks a solution. What if our theology clung to the idea that the sun revolves around the earth? We would make our theology a matter of ignorance and scandalize those who know better. In that case it would be …everyone. In this matter of evolution, however it happened God did it. I think it very likely.
 
Last edited:
sevenswords said:
I Heard that some Catholics even believe in a literal transubstantiation of Bread and wine, and science tells us clearly
Click to expand...
You are not Catholic.

This is clear by this statement. Please stop leading the op astray with your false errors
 
Benadam said:
Check this website out for some Catholic theology that’s open to evolution.

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/
Click to expand...
I love that site. They also have a book (same content as the site) for those who prefer physical paper in their hands.
sevenswords said:
I Heard that some Catholics even believe in a literal transubstantiation of Bread and wine, and science tells us clearly that is not possible
Click to expand...
Two things. The first is that we accept Transubstantiation on faith. It’s beyond the ordinary. Two is that we also, aside from a couple Eucharistic miracles, know that there’s no scientific evidence. Like I said before, we accept it on faith.

In regards to Genesis, the Church allows Catholics to accept evolution. In other words, we can seek an explanation for life’s diversity aside from Genesis and be in good standing. A literalistic reading of Genesis isn’t required on faith.

Joshringcell, if I had to guess, Traditionalist circles tend to prefer earlier Catholic writings. As evolution wasn’t yet an idea floating around for most of Church history, their preference for older writings would mostly leave out more modern interlretations of Genesis. Like you, I also find much more beauty in Genesis’ modern interpretations, but I also recognize that just as a literalistic reading of Genesis isn’t required, nor is a figurative reading. If you’re interested in what Traditionalists have to say overall, I would just not pay much attention to when they talk about evolution while reading other stuff.
 
mVitus said:
Joshringcell, if I had to guess, Traditionalist circles tend to prefer earlier Catholic writings.
Click to expand...
They picked it up from Fundamentalist Protestants. I’m constantly amazed by how much Traditionalists, especially the far-right ones, have been influenced by Calvinism.
 
@mVitus @AndrewAxland @Benedam Thank you for all your answers and the website recommendation - my position remains what it was, Genesis is historical in a sense, and theological in another sense, but certainly not literal, empirical history as we understand it today.

I had previously assumed that the literal, historical reading of Genesis was an entirely Protestant innovation, and was surprised to see many in the traditional movement (even Fr Ripperger of the FSSP who I greatly respect) denying evolution and other scientific theories and basing this denial on the church fathers - none of them being infallible of course. I suppose we can allow a certain fundamentalism in interpretation for those church fathers who didn’t have the benefit of the modern sciences.

But yes, overall, I cannot accept as literal truth every word of Genesis, and I don’t ultimately believe that this was ever Catholic teaching, even if at points popes and church fathers were more literal in their approach to scripture, maybe resulting from scientific ignorance or perhaps just ignorance of the text itself. I just became a little worried that people who are so staunch in the faith were suddenly promoting anti-scientific rubbish and doctrine that never was.

St Augustine is illuminating on this topic:
‘No one certainly would be so foolish as to think that, because God is great beyond all beings, even a very few syllables uttered by I-us mouth could have extended over the course of a whole day. Furthermore, it was by His coeternal Word, that is, by the interior and eternal forms of unchangeable Wisdom, not by the material sound of a voice, that “God called the light Day and the darkness Night.” And further questions arise. If He called them with words such as we use, what language did He speak? And what was the need of fleeting sounds where there was no bodily sense of hearing? These difficulties are insurmountable in such a supposition.’

and

‘In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.’

Pax Christi
 
joshringsell said:
Have become slightly disillusioned upon learning that traditional Catholic teaching believes in a fundamentalist, literal reading of Genesis - creation in a literal week etc.
Click to expand...
Well, stop the presses…there is no “traditional Catholic teaching” that believes the creation stories (Gen Chap 1 and 2) are literal.

You need to do a little more research on teachings of the Church.

Peace and all good!
 
sevenswords said:
I Heard that some Catholics even believe in a literal transubstantiation of Bread and wine, and science tells us clearly that is not possible
Click to expand...
Science says no such thing. In fact, it cannot even address the question, since it doesn’t deal in non-material concepts such as “substance”. So, there’s nothing that science can say or does say on the subject.
sevenswords said:
There is a reason why Atheism is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it’s because – as Augustine warned us 1600 years ago – when you look at what people can plainly see is true, physically, and you claim “that’s false, 'cause the Bible says it’s false!”, you end up turning them away from the faith ('cause, after all, the “fairy tales” they perceive are the teachings that believers insist are dogmatically true, even if the Church doesn’t teach them as such).
Roseeurekacross said:
40.png
sevenswords:
I Heard that some Catholics even believe in a literal transubstantiation of Bread and wine, and science tells us clearly
Click to expand...
You are not Catholic.

This is clear by this statement.
Click to expand...
I read this as sarcasm, not as a statement that means “you’re Catholic and I’m not”. 😉
Hereiam said:
Well, stop the presses…there is no “traditional Catholic teaching” that believes the creation stories (Gen Chap 1 and 2) are literal.

You need to do a little more research on teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
As do you, I’m afraid. Both views – a literal six-day creation as well as other approaches – are OK in the eyes of the Church.
 
Gorgias said:
As do you, I’m afraid. Both views – a literal six-day creation as well as other approaches – are OK in the eyes of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes of course…my bad…both are OK, but clearly one is no better than the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top