Poll: The creation narrative in Genesis is scientifically and historically accurate down to the last detail, including 6 literal 24-hour days. Yes or No?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
(05-06-2011, 01:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: I have a Haydock Bible, and it's one of my prize possessions. I respect Father Haydock, and I value his annotations. But he is not "the Church". I would be more impressed by an infallible pronouncement from a Pope or Ecumenical Council.

Well, that the earth was created in (6) 24 hour days WAS what the Church taught. That's why Haydock said it.
(05-06-2011, 12:34 PM)Stubborn Wrote: We Catholics are supposed to accept the interpretation as the Church teaches it - so six 24 hour days it is!
(05-06-2011, 01:23 PM)Aragon Wrote: Except the Church doesn't teach that the world was made in six 24 hour days.

(05-06-2011, 01:28 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Gen 1:14 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night,* and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days and years:

Interpretation: ............The day is completed in twenty-four hours, during which space the earth moves round its axis, and express successively different parts of its surface to the sun. It goes at a rate of fifty-eight thousand miles an hour, and completes its orbit in the course of a year. (Haydock)

This is Fr. Haydock’s commentary on the cited passage, which has Ecclesiastical approval, given at a particular point in history.  It may, or may not, represent our best scientific understanding of events depicted in that passage at a later point in history.  To my knowledge the Magisterium of the Church does not teach de fide that a literal understanding of a 6 x 24 hour day scheme of creation must be held.

As Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Gneris (my emphasis)
Quote:38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method,  used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense (my note, which may not necessarily be an absolute literal sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
I accidentally posted this in the other thread on this topic, but I meant it for this one so I'll put it here too  :-[ .

In St. Augustine's work, the Liternal Meaning of Genesis (cited earlier by Aragon), the explanation I found most interesting explains how a very old universe is compatible with the shorter history of man.  In Book 6 on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine Wrote:“There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.”

I find this explanation interesting as well because it explains why there are two seperate creation accounts of man.

Also, Pius XII seemed to believe Creation was billions of years old.

Pius XII Wrote:44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM (see also from paragraph 31 to the end)

Are trads required? What kind of question is that?

No, and you can believe this and still be a traditional Catholic.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
(05-06-2011, 04:09 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Are trads required? What kind of question is that?

I noticed this too.  I knew what he meant, but it sounds like there is some official board of trad certification or something.  Since anyone can call himself a trad there can't really be any requirements.
(05-06-2011, 04:12 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-06-2011, 04:09 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Are trads required? What kind of question is that?

I noticed this too.  I knew what he meant, but it sounds like there is some official board of trad certification or something.  Since anyone can call himself a trad there can't really be any requirements.

Also, the term "Biblical literalists" is wrong.

We are required to believe what the Church teaches. We are not supposed to go interpreting scripture privately.
The book, "My Catholic Faith," that is supposed to illustrate the Baltimore Catechism, seems to dance around the issue.  The only conclusion I could make that made any sense, was that they wanted Catholics to be able to say either position was Catholic.  I got the same impression from the current Catechism of The Catholic Church. 

This was uncomfortable for me, at first, because I would not even be a Christian, if I still believed in The General Theory of Evolution.  Although, I might have attended a church, to support the cultural heritage of The West. 

I think the question is meaningless, because of the Fall.

Our entire way of looking at the world is through fallen eyes. We live in the rubble.

What was "time" like before the fall? What was life like? What changed and what didn't change because of the fall?

We do not know.

Personally, I think we cannot image it. It was not two naked people in a garden, but two creations of God, created in His image, living in a pure world full of life without any disorder which was suddenly destroyed by sin, forever altering the world.

I do not think God created a world which followed the rules of chaos and death which govern it now. This is the problem. All cosmic and biological observations are governed by death and chaos. For this reason, I do not think we can use "evidence" to reconstruct history reliably because we are missing a crucial part.
I voted #3.  There is a reason there are the clearest pronouncements from the Chuch regarding God creating the world ex nihilo, the Fall, and so on, but not about 6 24-hour days.

It's also not clear, if we are literalists, how to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)