FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: To Catholic Creationist
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
This question is for Catholics who hold to the traditional 6-day creation.  I am a creationist and to me it is so obvious that the bible teaches it, the vast majority of Christians believed it, and that evolution is harmful to the church. To me, I see evolution as the leading cause of people leaving the Church [as a whole not just catholic] it is why I left the catholic church as a youth and why I am conservative protestant today. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...on-behind/
https://creation.com/fallout
https://answersingenesis.org/store/produ...u=10-1-412


Given the stance taken in the CCC on creation evolution and the age of the earth. How can I go against what I think is harmful anti-God philosophy and become a Catholic? this is my biggest stumbling block and I am asking for a thoughtful response. The Catholic Church's refusal to take a stand against the greatest enemy of our day. I now a response would be to trust the church and not yourself on interpretations.  But when it is so clear and so harmful to accept [evolution] how can I go against it? Should I also trust Islam or the koran and what it says even when it is so wrong on so many subjects? I will be held accountable to God so I cant join anything I think is so harmful to him and causes many like myself to reject him. 

Thanks.
My wife is a YEC Catholic.

There are people on here who are.

Check out the Kolbe Center and the encyclical Humani Generis.

The CCC neither endorses nor condemns biological macroevolution.
(03-18-2020, 04:56 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]This question is for Catholics who hold to the traditional 6-day creation.  I am a creationist and to me it is so obvious that the bible teaches it, the vast majority of Christians believed it, and that evolution is harmful to the church. To me, I see evolution as the leading cause of people leaving the Church [as a whole not just catholic] it is why I left the catholic church as a youth and why I am conservative protestant today. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...on-behind/
https://creation.com/fallout
https://answersingenesis.org/store/produ...u=10-1-412


Given the stance taken in the CCC on creation evolution and the age of the earth. How can I go against what I think is harmful anti-God philosophy and become a Catholic? this is my biggest stumbling block and I am asking for a thoughtful response. The Catholic Church's refusal to take a stand against the greatest enemy of our day. I now a response would be to trust the church and not yourself on interpretations.  But when it is so clear and so harmful to accept [evolution] how can I go against it? Should I also trust Islam or the koran and what it says even when it is so wrong on so many subjects? I will be held accountable to God so I cant join anything I think is so harmful to him and causes many like myself to reject him. 

Thanks.

The theory of evolution was one of the reasons I left God.
I expected the theoretical branch of biology to be just as critical as the practical branch of biology.
It turns out they use a much lower standard of evidence to devise their theories which are politically driven.

Tolkien Wrote:Given the stance taken in the CCC on creation evolution and the age of the earth

Can you please make a reference to or quote from the CCC about this stance?

From what I understand the CCC leaves much of the creation story undefined.
I don't think it teaches a "6 day creation" and I don't think it has the age of the earth written in the CCC.
I could be wrong, someone will correct me if i am.
(03-18-2020, 05:20 PM)19405 Wrote: [ -> ]My wife is a YEC Catholic.

There are people on here who are.

Check out the Kolbe Center and the encyclical Humani Generis.

The CCC neither endorses nor condemns biological macroevolution.


yes there are a catholic creationist and that is who I am asking for a response from. To see if this stumbling block can be removed. How they can reconcile the stance taken in the CCC and the truth of creation. How the one true church could not stand against falsehood?
The CCC says evolution could be true but the first man/women's souls were created. Why does it not stand on the truth of creation and reject evolution? as to the age of the earth it says

"science" have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers (CCC 283).

This shows they dont understand what science is since it is testable/repeatable etc so the age of the earth is outside of "science" but I dont disagree studies show the earth cant be as old as claimed. That is not what the CCC is saying. Why does it not say we know though church history and gods holy word how old the earth is.
(03-18-2020, 05:20 PM)19405 Wrote: [ -> ]My wife is a YEC Catholic.

There are people on here who are.

Check out the Kolbe Center and the encyclical Humani Generis.

The CCC neither endorses nor condemns biological macroevolution.

As much as I like some of the things the Kolbe center puts out, be careful with throwing that name around, it's like blood in the water for some users here.

As for the OP,
I'm a YEC Catholic. And so were the Scholastics (Aquinas was a 6-day creationist, regardless of what Neo-Thomists want to debate), and so were the Church Fathers. It is not a Fundie-christian position to take, but the traditional Catholic cosmological worldview.

As for the CCC; keep in mind that it is a compendium of the current "trends" of Catholic teaching, not a Magisterial document in-and-of itself. The Magisterium teaches that the father is the "king" or head of the household, but that teaching is strangely absent from the modern Catechism. Just because there is a footnote that states the Church "accepts" evolutionary theory, does not mean that the Magisterium has defined it as Church teaching. Basing your belief in the Church established by Jesus Christ through the Apostles on a Catechism that changes every few years is no grounds for your belief in Catholic Truth.

Evolution is a metaphysical worldview pushed by anti-Christian materialists and naturalists to undermine God's authority over creation. I personally reject theistic evolution because it is too quick to dismiss revelation to fit the modern worldview of a macroevolution, and it gives way to pantheism rather than true theism because it reduces everything to a sort of "prime matter" that can simply be retooled and refit into anything. It rejects forms and essences through its proposition of the change of one kind of creature into another, completely foreign, kind of creature.
There's also the problem of the less perfect creature developing into the more perfect creature, which is philosophically incoherent, because you can't give what you don't have; so an eyeless fish developing eyes over millions of years due to mutations (which are proven to have detrimental effects on populations, rather than beneficial) goes against the principle of sufficient reason, which requires that for an effect to be present it must be contained within its cause. I could incoherently ramble on and on.


In short, adhering to a YEC cosmology through the rejection of evolution is a perfectly Catholic position. Humani Generis may have opened the gates to Catholic consideration of the evolutionary hypotheses and findings, but it was in no way an official acceptance of evolution as truth. Unfortunately, it has been misconstrued as such, given that many Catholics not only adhere to evolutionary theory, but seem to vilify those who reject it as the nonsense that it is.
(03-18-2020, 04:56 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]This question is for Catholics who hold to the traditional 6-day creation.

This is not "the traditional" view. There is not a "traditional" viewpoint, since the Fathers of the Church themselves were widely split on how to interpret the Genesis account.

(03-18-2020, 04:56 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]I am a creationist and to me it is so obvious that the bible teaches it, the vast majority of Christians believed it, and that evolution is harmful to the church.

You're creating a false dichotomy. The contradictory notion to a 168-hour creation is not Darwinian Evolution.

It is a non-168-hour account. One could hold that kind of account and reject Darwinian Evolution.

Also, we don't get to decide what the Bible teaches.

The Church tells us what it teaches, and she does not say that a 168-hour account is what the Bible necessarily teaches, in fact. She says that this is one of several possibilities.

(03-18-2020, 04:56 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]To me, I see evolution as the leading cause of people leaving the Church [as a whole not just catholic] it is why I left the catholic church as a youth and why I am conservative protestant today.

Personal opinion here : I don't think it has much to do with people leaving the Church, given the absolute disaster since Vatican II.

Perhaps part of the problem. I'd say if it is the bigger issue is the lack of adequate Catholic Catechesis on the subject, and too much of the Protestant Biblicism entering Catholic thinking due to the lack of Catechesis, which give simple people the impression that there is this false dichotomy between Faith and Science. So they choose Science.

Faith and Science (properly done) are really just tools to the same Truth. They are not opposed unless people make part of "Faith" what is not, or make of "Science" what is not.

For instance, to insist that a 168-hour Genesis account is part of the Faith is wrong, and will lead souls away from God. To insist that Science can prove that all life came from some primordial soul and so there is not God is also wrong (because not a scientifically testable hypothesis), so it is a (false) religious doctrine, and will lead souls away. Both will lead souls away from God.

(03-18-2020, 04:56 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]Given the stance taken in the CCC on creation evolution and the age of the earth. How can I go against what I think is harmful anti-God philosophy and become a Catholic? this is my biggest stumbling block and I am asking for a thoughtful response. The Catholic Church's refusal to take a stand against the greatest enemy of our day. I now a response would be to trust the church and not yourself on interpretations.  But when it is so clear and so harmful to accept [evolution] how can I go against it? Should I also trust Islam or the koran and what it says even when it is so wrong on so many subjects? I will be held accountable to God so I cant join anything I think is so harmful to him and causes many like myself to reject him. 

I'd say the only thing you can do is abandon your own personal interpretation of Scripture and trust the Church that Christ founded, which can be demonstrate to be the True Church, whereas no Protestant sect can be shown to be anything like the early Church, and all broke from the Catholic Church.

I am not saying that you have to accept an evolutionary account, or even abandon your interpretation. I am saying you need to abandon holding it because you think this, and instead agree to hold it because the Church allows you to do so. To submit your judgement to the Church's.

This is the essence of being Catholic, and the Catholic Faith. Faith is the acceptance of the Truth of a thing on the authority of God or the authority he delegated, namely the Church.

In changing why you accept that account of Genesis, you would then also have to accept that the Church allows other interpretations, because another reading could be right. As said, the Fathers held different interpretations. Some are 168-hour, some are not. Thus the Church does not demand one or the other, but allows reasonable freedom.
(03-18-2020, 05:42 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a YEC Catholic. And so were the Scholastics (Aquinas was a 6-day creationist, regardless of what Neo-Thomists want to debate), and so were the Church Fathers.

Aquinas does not argue anywhere for a 24-hour "day". In the Summa Theologica he mentions "day" and "twenty four hours" only in the Prima Pars q. 68, a. 1, ad 1. He does not assert that "day" in Genesis means 24-hours, but rather just the opposite. He says when God calls the Light "Day" just as the Firmament "Heaven" he is using the word in an equivocal (completely different) sense.

My own personal opinion from my seminary studies using the Summa Theologica and other Thomistic works is that St Thomas would have likely taken St Augustine's "instantaneous creation" perspective, not a 168-hour perspective. This is because he distinguishes "Creation" as the act of bringing out of no previously existing subject, something, and this only happened at the very beginning. And "adorning" or making the arrangement of already existing things.

St Thomas, simply, was not demonstrably a 168-hour Creationist.

As regards the Fathers, as I noted, they are not in unison on this point in the least. Hugh Owen's claim of this is a bald-faced lie.

St Victorinus of Petau (On the Creation of the World), and St Basil (Hexameron, 2, 8) are the only Fathers who absolutely assert in anything close to a doctrinal teaching, that the "day" of Genesis is a 24-hour period. Even here, when these sections are read for context, it become doubtful that they are clearly trying to bind people to believe this.

On the other hand, St Augustine (On the literal interpretation of Genesis), St Clement (Stromata 6.16), and St Cyprian of Carthage (Treatises 11.11), all clearly hold a non-24 hour "day" in Genesis.

St Clement speaks of a "indefinite and dateless production". St Cyprian thinks each "day" is a thousand year period. St Augustine just says they are of a different nature, writing, "What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them."

So, no. The Fathers did not teach a 168-hour Creation. Nor does St Thomas Aquinas assert it is a doctrine of the Faith.

(03-18-2020, 05:42 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]It is not a Fundie-christian position to take, but the traditional Catholic cosmological worldview.

Well it's not the common worldview of the Fathers, so there's no way to legitimately call it a "traditional Catholic" worldview, unless you are saying many "traditional Catholics" believe it, because of the Fundie-christian stuff they've been reading.

And it's not the worldview found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was printed in the early 1900s and is certainly well before Humani Generis. It's also not the viewpoint of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, under St Pius X.

So, in short, no, it's not the "traditional Catholic" position by any real definition of that term.
(03-18-2020, 05:42 PM)Augustinian Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-18-2020, 05:20 PM)19405 Wrote: [ -> ]My wife is a YEC Catholic.

There are people on here who are.

Check out the Kolbe Center and the encyclical Humani Generis.

The CCC neither endorses nor condemns biological macroevolution.

As much as I like some of the things the Kolbe center puts out, be careful with throwing that name around, it's like blood in the water for some users here.

As for the OP,
I'm a YEC Catholic. And so were the Scholastics (Aquinas was a 6-day creationist, regardless of what Neo-Thomists want to debate), and so were the Church Fathers. It is not a Fundie-christian position to take, but the traditional Catholic cosmological worldview.

As for the CCC; keep in mind that it is a compendium of the current "trends" of Catholic teaching, not a Magisterial document in-and-of itself. The Magisterium teaches that the father is the "king" or head of the household, but that teaching is strangely absent from the modern Catechism. Just because there is a footnote that states the Church "accepts" evolutionary theory, does not mean that the Magisterium has defined it as Church teaching. Basing your belief in the Church established by Jesus Christ through the Apostles on a Catechism that changes every few years is no grounds for your belief in Catholic Truth.

Evolution is a metaphysical worldview pushed by anti-Christian materialists and naturalists to undermine God's authority over creation. I personally reject theistic evolution because it is too quick to dismiss revelation to fit the modern worldview of a macroevolution, and it gives way to pantheism rather than true theism because it reduces everything to a sort of "prime matter" that can simply be retooled and refit into anything. It rejects forms and essences through its proposition of the change of one kind of creature into another, completely foreign, kind of creature.
There's also the problem of the less perfect creature developing into the more perfect creature, which is philosophically incoherent, because you can't give what you don't have; so an eyeless fish developing eyes over millions of years due to mutations (which are proven to have detrimental effects on populations, rather than beneficial) goes against the principle of sufficient reason, which requires that for an effect to be present it must be contained within its cause. I could incoherently ramble on and on.


In short, adhering to a YEC cosmology through the rejection of evolution is a perfectly Catholic position. Humani Generis may have opened the gates to Catholic consideration of the evolutionary hypotheses and findings, but it was in no way an official acceptance of evolution as truth. Unfortunately, it has been misconstrued as such, given that many Catholics not only adhere to evolutionary theory, but seem to vilify those who reject it as the nonsense that it is.


Ok I like what you are saying and I know it is not dogma. But I guess my question then is how can the infallible church not take a stance on an issue so vital to salvation and leading people astray? why is it not the leading defender of truth on this issue?
(03-18-2020, 06:13 PM)Tolkien1096 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess my question then is how can the infallible church not take a stance on an issue so vital to salvation and leading people astray? why is it not the leading defender of truth on this issue?

Because if there is not the dogma of the Faith or Morals involved, the Church cannot speak infallibly on a subject.

And, as I suggested, it is not a black-and-white issue, even among the Fathers of the Church.

The Church has, many times, clearly condemned what is against the Faith with regards to evolution and other false worldviews, but when the matters don't touch on this, she does not get involved.

In short, the issue may not be "so vital to salvation and leading people astray" as you think it is.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11