Was the world created in 7 days?

[SemperFidelis]

It seems to me the Church hasn’t said anything officially one way or the other.

Some say its wrong to say we descended form apes and others say why not. I still think he created man, not we evolved form apes.

I’ve not found an ex-cathedra statement either way.

CC 290 and on are the actual church teachings on creation.

I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man), but evolution from ape into man is a far stretch that I will never believe. I’ve read the CCC from 290 on and it seems that macro-evolution would contradict what it says. I wish this subject was more clear, that’s one of my qualms with it - so much confusion.

 

[LJN21]

Thanks for the advice carol marie. I know no Church is perfect, but I see so much division among the one Church that is suppposed to be united. It didn’t even know until the other day that Byzantine Catholics rejected certain “Roman teachings” and that it is allowed by the Church. I see far more liberalism in the Catholic Church than the Church I’ve grown up in, while it should be the opposite as the Catholic Church relies on tradition. It makes me question whether I am doing the right thing. Doctrinally I am far closer to Catholicism than any other Church, with Orthodoxy coming in second. I had a great experience the first time I went to Mass, and then I find out things that question the validity of the Church. Liberal Bishops refuse to listen to the Pope, so many liturgical abuses, etc. Maybe I should take time away from these boards. But then again when I have questions I have nowhere else to go. I don’t know.

Well, I think the heresy of modernism are very alive an well in parts of today’s church. You have to remember tho there have always been trials and tribulations in the Church. Look back over past heresies. Some of them lasted hundreds of years! That doesn’t mean the Church was in error just some of the flock.

Priest and Bishops are just people, what they say and do is by no means infallible. Only the Pope can say things infallible and only in regards to Faith and Morals. In everything else the Church is subject to human error.

The liturgical abuses are whats hardest for me and one of the reason we drive 30 min to attend a Latin Mass.

 

[SemperFidelis]

It seems to me the Church hasn’t said anything officially one way or the other.

Some say its wrong to say we descended form apes and others say why not. I still think he created man, not we evolved form apes.

I’ve not found an ex-cathedra statement either way.

CC 290 and on are the actual church teachings on creation.

I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man), but evolution from ape into man is a far stretch that I will never believe. I’ve read the CCC from 290 on and it seems that macro-evolution would contradict what it says. I wish this subject was more clear, that’s one of my qualms with it - so much confusion.

 

[LJN21]

I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man), but evolution from ape into man is a far stretch that I will never believe. I’ve read the CCC from 290 on and it seems that macro-evolution would contradict what it says. I wish this subject was more clear, that’s one of my qualms with it - so much confusion.

I agree.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man), but evolution from ape into man is a far stretch that I will never believe. I’ve read the CCC from 290 on and it seems that macro-evolution would contradict what it says. I wish this subject was more clear, that’s one of my qualms with it - so much confusion.

I, too, will never believe in evolution from ape to man. It appears that there were man-like animals in the form of neanderthal. I say man-like because I remain unconvinced that these are the first parents to which the Bible and the Church speaks–the ones that were in God’s image (having eternal souls).

I’m praying for you on your journey to your new Church home and I hope you will keep on researching the Catholic Church. Sometimes, I see the disunity (liberalism,modernism etc) and problems in the Church and I go crazy. However, I firmly believe that Jesus established one Church and it was upon Peter and that Church remains untorn (see John 21:11). I have not been presented with a compelling enough arguement which convinces me otherwise, so I remain faithful to Church. Keep praying, and remain docile to the Holy Spirit… He will lead you to the Church where you belong!

 

[look3467]

If I may give a different view of the seven day creation it goes something like this: 7 days can mean 7 billion years.
The point is made that God created it all and gave us in simple terms how He did it and how He created mankind as well.

Now there is a two part story to the creation. The first creation, and the second creation. The first ended at the cross and the second began at the resurrection.

Jesus whose name is Yah=Father and Shua= salvation, together equals "The Fathers Salvation. (Yahshua) meaning Jesus.

The Father who is God created all that you see. The creation of mankind and the consequences of that creation brought death to the soul of mankind’s spirit. (Meaning separation which technically, is death)

Jesus then must modify the first by recreation the spiritual end of it, and doing away with the separation (Death) and the place that held prisoners those souls who were barred from heaven due to the consequences of the separation. (Death)

The first Adam brought the flesh and death.
The second Adam brought a rebirth of spirit and life.

So, Jesus used the same 7-day story to remake the first creation to include every soul that ever lived and died, and all souls that will ever be born, henceforth.

If you find this view rather strange, don’t worry to much about it, for it is for those who want to go into the deep things of the Lord and find pearls worthy of Gods honor.

Peace>>>AJ:heart:

 

[VociMike]

For those who insist that the Genesis creation account is literally true, how do you explain that the two different accounts are, well, different? In the first account, man is created last. In the second account, he is created before the birds and the beasts.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

So… if the seven days creation is considered a myth… then what about the fall of man with Adam and Eve?

Once you discount creation in the literal sense, you then poke holes in most of Genesis. Without a literal interpretation of Original Sin, you now have taken the relevence of not only the Word of God in the Bible, but the Gospel message as well.

Slippery slope indeed.

The fall is a depiction of why the world’s moral state is what it is. The evidence is readily observable by anybody with reasonable intelligence. That is why I don’t particularly worry about “holes” being poked in the moral dimension of Genesis.

 

[abu_kamoon]

Science is supposed to be the search for the truth. Much of what passes for science changes. Does the truth change?

I wouldn’t put too much faith in what science says about creation, the origin of life, or what happens to us when we die. These areas are outside the parameters of scientific investigation.

Just as the Church is not an authority on science, science is unable to comment intelligently on matters involving origins. When scientists make claims in these areas, their explanations are only temporary. So, why should we give them any credence?

It is a lot easier for me to believe that God could create the world in six days, than it is to me to believe that I descended from some ape-like animals.

Darwinism is a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural event. If it were true, why would the Bible state that we were composed of the dust of the Earth? If Evolution were true why would the Bible say that each kind reproduced its own kind? Why does the Bible say that death came with man’s sin, if animals had been dying for “millions of years”?

ابو كمون

 

[davidmammola]

For SemperFidelis and others who see this issue as a stumbling block to joining the Catholic faith, I ask you:

1.) Do you have to understand (or know the answers to) everything that is not yet defined by the Church?
2.) If something is not defined by the Church yet, why on earth would that be a stumbling block to you?

Some people on this forum are basically saying that they can’t see themselves becoming Catholic because Catholics are engaged in a lively debate about something the Church has not defined dogmatically yet. What do you think happened throughout Christian history at various Church councils? Christians of good will got together to argue various theological points of view, resulting in either clearer understanding (and perhaps dogmatic definitions) or a refusal of the Church to settle the issue so that neither side should be condemned. In the latter case, we must accept and be comfortable with the mystery.

The origins of the cosmos and the end of the world as we know it will forever be shrouded in mystery while we are here on earth, and I believe God wanted it that way. For this reason, the beginning and the end of the Bible (Genesis and Revelation) are both full of symbolic imagery to help us gain a glimpse of or an insight into inconceiveable cosmic truths that our minds cannot wrap around.

Why should we force these passages into particular interpretive boxes when the Church herself in her wisdom has decided to let them remain mysterious and open questions?

 

[davidmammola]

Recent popes like John Paul II have acknowledged JEPD (see Theology of the Body writings) and the possibility of macro-evolution (within certain parameters – see my next post). If it is good enough for JPII, it’s safe to say the issue has not been settled dogmatically yet. Whatever website stated that six-day creationism is the dogmatic and only teaching of the Church must be a traditionalist website that is not accurately stating the Catholic position. The Catechism states that the Bible sometimes uses figurative language to describe truth events that happened “in the beginning.”

Personally, I could go either way on this issue. Some orthodox Catholic apologists like Tim Staples (whom I deeply respect) don’t seem to believe in macro-evolution, while orthodox Catholic scientists like physicist Dr. Anthony Rizzi (whom I also deeply respect) do believe in it. This tells me the jury is still out on creationism and evolution.

 

[davidmammola]

While the timeframe of creation and the exact details of the Fall are open to interpretation, Catholics must acknowledge what the Church has already defined about Genesis 1-3, namely:

1. God alone freely created the entire universe out of nothing.
2. There was an original human couple from which it seems all humans must have come.
3. The human soul did not evolve but was created immediately by God, even if the pre-human body of man evolved.
4. This human couple committed the first human sin by disobeying God, bringing death, suffering, and concupiscence into the world. We have inherited from this couple a lack of sanctifying grace.

BOTTOM LINE: Genesis, like the rest of the Bible, is true, inspired, and inerrant, but some parts of it deliberately use poetic, phenomenological, or figurative language to describe truths beyond our experience or comprehension. Sometimes we don’t always know when the biblical authors are using figurative language. This is why we need a Church. When we compare biblical texts to existing and infallible Church dogmas, it becomes apparent which texts must be taken literally, which could be taken figuratively, and which texts could go either way.

We seem to forget that we do have relative certainty about the genre of the vast majority of biblical texts. The few texts that stump us like Genesis 1-11, Jonah, Judith, etc. do not mean that the whole Bible is up for grabs. The Church affirms the historicity of the Gospel miracle accounts, for instance. And the genre of the books of Kings tells us that these books are meant to be historical, even if they don’t directly correspond to modern historical conventions. Revelation displays an apocalypitic genre, that while highly symbolic, does describe eternal and cosmic truths. Again, it teaches truth using poetic or figurative language, just as one would expect from a mystical vision, like those of Ezekiel, etc.

 

[Hellisreal]

Great post! But, why is it I have heard there are 5 “truths” in Genesis?

You listed 4. I have heard there are 5.

 

[Sixtus]

7777777Now
As a Catholic are you required to believe the world was created in 7 days as it says in Genesis?

The assumption not only that there were 7-days but that each day consisted of 24-hours.

Yet we know the early earth, there were only 22 hours in a day as the planet spun faster

 

[steveandersen]

It seems to me the Church hasn’t said anything officially one way or the other.

and she won’t

Some say its wrong to say we descended form apes and others say why not. I still think he created man, not we evolved form apes.

why can’t it be both?

 

[steveandersen]

I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man), but evolution from ape into man is a far stretch that I will never believe. I’ve read the CCC from 290 on and it seems that macro-evolution would contradict what it says. I wish this subject was more clear, that’s one of my qualms with it - so much confusion.

you can’t just be a little bit evolved
either it happens or it doesn’t
once you admit the process exists yuou’re stuck with it unless you can propose some mechanism to stop evolution at X amount of change.

 

[melensdad]

So can one believe in Darwinism or Creationism and still be a devout Catholic?

Also, is there a bible available that lets you know when you are reading something that should not be taken literally?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the world was not created in 7 days, as we would define literal days. We, as Catholics do not take the Bible literally and the key to our understanding is all spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Further, as Catholics, we believe in the Big Bang theory, and we cal also believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Our understanding is rooting in the fact that God created the actions that started the process and all things from God are good. Evolution is actually taught in our Catholic schools. Please take a look at a couple books that will really help you. One is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but it is not really easy to read so there are some books that are titled something like “Understanding the Catechism …” You may also want to pick up a book called “Why Catholics Do That”

 

[Sixtus]

Originally by SemperFidelis)—
I can believe in micro-evolution (basically that human beings once looked different than today’s humans ie. neandrathal man vs. today’s man),

So, one wonders what man will eventually end up looking like.

 

[Sixtus]

We, as Catholics do not take the Bible literally and the key to our understanding is all spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I think what you mean is 'the Church guides us as to which bits are intended to be taken literally and which bits are metaphorical

 

[SEMO_Bill]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church neither requires nor forbids belief in the 7-day creation account in Genesis. As for evolution, it only tells us HOW matter developed over time to what it is now, ie., mammals, insects, reptiles, etc., whereas creationism tells us the origin of such matter, namely God.
There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not Darwin believed in God. Most scientists usually leave out of one of his most famous writings on his evolution theories (yes he had more than one theory) the part where he speaks of a Creator. I think you and I know why it is left out. Due to that omission most people (who have not actually read Darwin) are purposely led astray. Of, course, I could be mistaken in all of this.