Would Creationism exist, without Protestantism?

[mcq72]

I’m simply saying that not making up one’s mind can save from many errors and sorrows.

If only the church did same on real presence and Marion doctrine. We went from Nicene council and it’s one or two pages of faith decrees to dozens of pages from Trent council…like the Catechism gets larger and larger…like taking useful tradition and dogmatizing it to the point of a capital T, shutti g out any what if’s on perhaps some non essentials as you allude to.

But again thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[mcq72]

And yeah, I do believe Moses parted the sea and that the Egyptians chasing after the Israelites really did die.

Cool…thanks…lol…i think i covered all the other biblical stories that seem wild and that some do not take literally.

The only scripture i have not heard an answer to is in Genesis where Adam and Eve are told to “replenish” the earth, as if something was there before.

 

[Ilkka]

i think i covered all the other biblical stories that seem wild and that some do not take literally.

Probably most of them. The Bible seems to have parts that are to be taken literally and some that are just a figure of speech. For example, in the creation account it is told that God created light and darkness, the oceans, the dry land and plants before the beginning of the fourth day. But then, on day #4, He created the sun and the moon to distinguish day and night. Clearly this is the moment when the day as we know it began. So what about the days before? What about the first day, the day when God created light and darkness, day and night? Clearly, the word ’day’ doesn’t mean a 24-hour period here but rather something else. This is the reason I don’t support a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1.

The only scripture i have not heard an answer to is in Genesis where Adam and Eve are told to “replenish” the earth, as if something was there before.

Well, there were plants and animals before that. Plants were created on the third day, flying beings and creatures living in the waters were created on the fifth day and other animals were created on the sixth day before man was created.

 

[Ilkka]

Well, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibility. So if they come up with a dogmatic statement, it truly is so.

 

[TMC]

Pardon the interruption, but may I chime in with a different view?

May I ask if you believe early man living hundreds of years, like Adam to Noah?

No, I do not.

Did Jonah indeed get swallowed by a large sea creature,

No.

did David slay a Goliath or Sampson many with a bone

I think so, although the tales may have grown in the telling.

was there a world wide flood or was it just " local"

Not global. Perhaps a specific local event.

did Moses part the sea, etc?

Not impossible, but probably not.

It is also my view that none of those positions prevents me from being a good Catholic, and I know that none impact my own faith. Do you agree that a Catholic can believe that many of these stories are parable, myth or allegory and still be a good Catholic? Not a challenge - a sincere question.

 

[Ilkka]

I would recommend you look up what Church fathers wrote about these miraculous events. I would also mention that believing in the resurrection of the dead requires more faith than believing in many of the supernatural OT events. Heavenly mannah, stone tablets, walls of Jericho… Many things in the OT are taught to be factually true.

Now, I’m not saying this to push you down or anything… I’m just saying that our whole faith is a faith in God and what He does in His unlimited, sovereign omnipotence. Miracles are miraculous because they are not the norm. Great miracles are what this faith is built upon.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Do you agree that a Catholic can believe that many of these stories are parable, myth or allegory and still be a good Catholic?

I’m a YEC believer. I’m certain one can view the stories as you describe and be a good, no even a great, Catholic.

I view a literal reading of the Old Testament as not in conflict with an allegorical, mythical, or otherwise reading. I dont think one way has to negate other ways. Unless the Church declares it to be so.

 

[TMC]

Some of the Church’s leading teachers, both in ancient times and now, have taught that much of Scripture is not literal history. Do you believe that believing in the literal truth of all of Genesis is required? If so, it seems many big figures in Church history (and Church leadership) would disagree.

I don’t think its a matter of not believing in God’s power. Its about understanding Scripture, and also understanding the world, science and history. Those things work together in harmony, they need not stand in opposition one to the other.

 

[TMC]

I view a literal reading of the Old Testament as not in conflict with an allegorical, mythical, or otherwise reading. I dont think one way has to negate other ways. Unless the Church declares it to be so.

I certainly agrees the Church allows either reading. I don’t think the Church finds a literal reading to be superior, but it is allowed. Given that, why wouldn’t a Catholic preference a reading that is consistent with science and history over one that is not?

 

[Ilkka]

Do you believe that believing in the literal truth of all of Genesis is required?

No.

Its about understanding Scripture, and also understanding the world, science and history. Those things work together in harmony, they need not stand in opposition one to the other.

I agree. I still think the most famous great miracles of Genesis are true.

 

[TMC]

That’s fair. I appreciate the response.

 

[mcq72]

Do you agree that a Catholic can believe that many of these stories are parable, myth or allegory and still be a good Catholic? Not a challenge - a sincere question.

I understand the CC has not been dogmatic on these things…you remind me of some Jewish folk I know, who also do not believe in these stories literally…seems unfortunate to not believe fully in one’s heritage is my feeling

 

[TMC]

I understand the CC has not been dogmatic on these things…you remind me of some Jewish folk I know, who also do not believe in these stories literally…seems unfortunate to not believe fully in one’s heritage is my feeling

My feeling is that we are charged with understanding God and His Creation, and that science and history can illuminate Creation. I don’t think it is a rejection of one’s heritage to advance in understanding.

 

[TMC]

Only if by “people” you mean the Church. The Church does not teach dogmatically (or in any other way) that the earth is 6 or 7 thousand years old.

 

[TMC]

I’m not taking the time to refute each of your points. You are making the extreme claim that the Church doesn’t “really” teach what any catechized Catholic knows the Church does teach. You have the burden to support those extreme claims. The Catechism says that God created out of nothing, but takes no position on the age of the earth beyond acknowledging that scientific discoveries continue, and that those discoveries do not detract from faith. Other Church publications (e.g. Communion and Stewardship) say explicitly that Creation is likely 15 billion years old or more.

So, are you saying you are correct, and that Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict, and Pope Francis are all wrong? Why should we credit your understanding of Catholicism above the understanding of the Popes?

 

[Gripper]

Just wondering, it seems like every Protestant I know thinks the world is 6,000 years old, so I am curious, if Martin Luther didn’t start Protestantism, and every Christian remained Catholic, would some Christians still claim that the world is 6,000 years old?

Yes.

Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

Catechism 279: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."116 Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is “Creator of heaven and earth” ( Apostles’ Creed ), “of all that is, seen and unseen” ( Nicene Creed ). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again.

 

[nafatyuk]

I find the whole discussion to be rather counterproductive. We are here, ultimately, no matter the specific processes that brought us here. Perhaps we got here 6000 years after the universe began, perhaps it was 12 billion or something.

My personal belief is that the theory of evolution is a more useful framework to describe the world around us regardless of its innate truth (or lack thereof).
The question, it seems to me, is not which explanation for the beginning of all things is true, but how are our actions affected by it? Meaning, which theory is of greater value in the here and now. Now, my personal interest is in the field of psychology, for which the framework of evolution provides a useful point of view. Is it true? Who cares, at least it’s useful.

It just seems to me that the whole discussion of which explanation is true is a waste of time and energy that would be better directed to other matters (such as stopping abortion, for instance).

 

[TMC]

No. I have cited to the Catechism and Church documents. Here is a quote from Communion and Stewardship, published by the Church with the express approval of then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

From later in that same paragraph:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

Now you say that YOUR personal interpretation of cherry picked and old Church statements and documents is more authoritative than what the current leaders of the Church say on the topic.

To be sure, you are free to believe whatever you want. I have absolutely no problem with that. But I do have a problem with telling people that may not know better that the Church teaches something it does not. The fact that you think the Church should teach Young Earth does not mean that it does. The Church’s teaching is clear, and anyone who is unsure should consult the Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
and Communion and Stewardship: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[mcq72]

My feeling is that we are charged with understanding God and His Creation, and that science and history can illuminate Creation.

more like “Creation”, His Word, illuminates science and history also.

I don’t think it is a rejection of one’s heritage to advance in understanding.

well we all seek advancement in understanding…faith will always be needed…every advancement only directs another hundred questions

 

[mcq72]

agree, for fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.

Like literal genealogy and Adam existing around 6000 years ago.

Any answer to them (Adam and Eve) being told to "replenish " the earth ?