Tradition and Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshringsell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joshringsell said:
A prominent example is Fr. Ripperger of the FSSP who has videos on YouTube denying evolution and the Big Bang based on a faulty view of creation
Click to expand...
Can you please provide the link? Because Fr. Ripperger has a tendency to speak in theological & mystical language. He also has a tendency to speak about Theology like he’s speaking to Seminarians at all times.
 
Wesrock said:
I wouldn’t use the term “divine evolution” as that seems easily misleading. In my own case, I’d say I believe that evolution is part of the natural order and that natural order is created knowledgeably by God, and also that I reject a purely mechanical view or nature (devoid of purpose/teleology/qualitative elements), and also that I affirm the theological truths about the origins of original sin and the Fall as a primeval, historical event.
Click to expand...
Yes, think the correct term I was looking for is “Divine Design.” That’s what I meant by “Divine evolution” – I meant what St. John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI both said about evolution.

God bless
 
Last edited:
joshringsell said:
I just had a Facebook argument with a Catholic who believed in a literal reading of Genesis - it’s tiring having to explain the obvious i.e. Genesis isn’t a science textbook, shocking, I know, and also having to explain that questions of ontology are different from cosmology and have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...
Hi Josh,

there is no reason to do that. They are 100% within their rights to believe that, just like you are 100% in your rights to believe in Divine Design.

What both you and he are not allowed to do is say “you’re wrong.” The Church allows faithful Catholics to believe in a literal 7 day creation and allows Catholics to believe in Divine Design (as long as Adam & Eve are recognized as the first parents – or at bar minimum as the first homo sapiens made in His image.

God Bless
 
Individual Catholics MUST believe that at consecration

The Body , Blood, Soul Divinity of the Risen Crucified Jesus are really present

Whether someone believes in a fundamental view of the first 11 chapters or not, to evolution or not is absolutely irrelevant to this.

We MUST believe in the act of transubstitution.
 
Last edited:
You quoted me and in your post about believing in evolution or not.

I was not responding to that, when I responded to seven swords. I was responding to
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 but hey who are ya going to believe God or Satan/fundamental high priests of science.
Click to expand...
 
The first scientist to propose the big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest.
 
sevenswords said:
40.png
Gorgias:
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.
Click to expand...
DNA analysis of consecrated sacramental bread refutes Catholic transubstantiation claim - Scientific Raelian
they try…
Click to expand...
This is coming from Raelists. Therefore, from someone in a religious context. They can say what they want, but this isn’t a “scientific” claim; it’s a claim of a competing religion, and the claim misunderstands what the Church says about the Eucharist.
 
fhansen said:
The first scientist to propose the big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest.
Click to expand...
Jesuit [LeMaitre] at that.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was also trained by Jesuits.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin [Jesuit] was also involved in at least two evolutionary hoaxes, such as Piltdown, and another in China.

Jesuits are all over evolutionary theory, promoting the stuff, even in the field of astrophysics and cosmogony, see Jesuit Consolmagno, and others.

Even Ignatius [Jesuit] spake of “leveling up” a person, though matters spiritually.
 
Last edited:
EvangAlived said:
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin [Jesuit] was also involved in at least two evolutionary hoaxes, such as Piltdown,
Click to expand...
He took part in the dig. The most recent investigation indicates the hoax was solely the work of Dawson.
 
None of it translates to Catholic doctrine though. And the BB isn’t directly related to evolution anyway.
 
All Catholics should hold to their tradition and not be swayed by Athiest dogma that is full of false assumptions and lies to deter people from the truth.
There are some Saints who have given the age of the earth, Mary Of Agreda was quoted to by Our Lady and there is no sign of evolution or billions of years, so who do you believe? God and his Saints/Popes or Atheistic evolution? By the way Evolution no matter how loud they shout have not one single proof just assumption as I said.

The Roman Martyrology Proclamation for Christmas
As approved by several Popes.
In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world
from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth;
the two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seventh year after the flood;
the two thousand and fifteenth year from the birth of Abraham;
the one thousand five hundred and tenth year from Moses
and the going forth of the people of Israel from Egypt;
the one thousand and thirty-second year from David’s being anointed king;
in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;
in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;
the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome;
the forty second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;
the whole world being at peace,
in the sixth age of the world,
Jesus Christ the eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,
desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,
being conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and nine months having passed since his conception,
was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary,
being made flesh.
The Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
Click to expand...
“Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” St. Thomas Aquinas
 
sevenswords said:
In the five thousand one hundred and ninety-ninth year of the creation of the world
from the time when God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth
Click to expand...
That phrase does not necessarily mean the creation of the planet. It very well could mean the creation of the world as we know it. The planet was a very different world before the last ice age.

And let me be clear… I am NOT denying the faith the ancients. I’m simply questioning whether we properly understand the true meaning of that phrase.

For example: if Atlantis was real, then the destruction of Atlantis could have been the beginning of our “world” some 7000+ years ago.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Yep God says one thing and the snakes move in to ask, “Did God really say that?”
“Day came and night came”
“He made them each to their own kind”
Genealogy from Adam to Jesus tells us roughly what time it was

2 Thessalonians “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,”

The fruit speaks for themselves.
God bless.
 
Pius IX in the 1860s described the relationship of science and religion:
In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.
Click to expand...
40 years later, Pius X made that the center of his argument against Modernism. The Pontifical Biblical Commission of the time enforced this with rulings that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible, it was literal history, etc. Basically, scientists and historians had to accept what the Church said.

Pius X did a number of other things, like reduce the age for first communion, reintroduced Gregorian chant, etc. These things, good and bad, contributed to a united framework for people’s faith. This is what traditionalists are fighting for, and why some stray toward literalistic, fundamentalist type faith. It was an integrated whole that had to be defended.

Most of the Church went with modifications and transformations that came with the liturgical movement, scriptural scholarship, and other reforms that culminated in V2. Others kept to what they were taught was an integral whole. Some of what they defend if admirable, like chant. Other parts are inconceivable, like opposition to evolution.
 
sevenswords said:
Yep God says one thing and the snakes move in to ask, “Did God really say that?”
“Day came and night came”
“He made them each to their own kind”
Genealogy from Adam to Jesus tells us roughly what time it was

2 Thessalonians “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,”

The fruit speaks for themselves.
God bless.
Click to expand...
Please do NOT twist my words like that. It’s important for all of us to understand what the authors of the Scriptures meant.

We are not protestants who take things too literally. The Church has declared that we are allowed to believe in either a literal 6 Day creation or in Divine Design. As long as we believe that the world has been created as God intended and that Adam and Eve where our first parents.

We are also to believe that Noah and Abraham were both real, etc.

But we do not have to believe that the creation of our planet literally too place in 144 hours, 5199 years before Jesus was Born. We are allowed to understand that as figurative language. Or even perhaps 5199 years after Adam and Eve.

God bless
 
Last edited:
The reason atheism is so popular is it is an "anything you wanna do is A-ok.
People like to shirk responsibility and this is the perfect way to do so in my opinion…
 
Vatican II again. The scapegoat. The false cause of the distortions in the liturgy and the concerted efforts to create distortions in society and elevate them to “good.” No, that is wrong. The Marketing of Evil began in earnest in the 1970s. I watched as grave error was introduced to people: “Take and indulge yourself.”

Aside from the Liturgical Reform, that’s it. It was the job and purpose of those who hated the Church and the family to wreck both, from within the Church and by sending false preachers into our neighborhoods. I saw it as it happened. We were too trusting and they took advantage of our trust. Temptations were multiplied. The liars lied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top