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.
20
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
75
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
#61
(05-09-2011, 07:47 AM)Nic Wrote:
(05-08-2011, 06:40 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-08-2011, 06:24 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's no wonder the Church is in shambles when "traditional Catholics" themsevels are so eager to throw the word of God in the dustbin.

Nobody in this thread has thrown the word of God in the dustbin.  You are misrepresenting the theistic evolution position. What we have is the majority of trads accepting what the Church teaches on the subject.  It is somewhat disappointing that all trads do not do so, but it is encouraging that a healthy majority do.

The Church does not teach "theistic" evolutionism!  Concerning her tradition, the Church actually teaches six literal Creation days and a young earth, because the early Fathers found absolutely no reason not to take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally.  If the creation story in Genesis is interpreted literally, then evolution (that matter, not God, formed things) is a false theory.  Should we interpret the book of Genesis literally?  The Catholic Church, in adopting the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. 

This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).  There is not a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach that God created all things out of nothing in six literal days.  Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation.

Books like Revelation, on the other hand, are absolutely not to be taken literally because necessity demands a figurative interpretation.  One can see just how symbolic Revelation truly is because that is the style in which it was written - in Jewish apocalyptic symbolism, a type of literature of the period.  Genesis exhibits NO characteristics of symbolism, to the contrary, it exhibits the language of literalism.  This is why the fathers interpreted it as so - and why we also should do the same, even in the face of what "modern science" tries to shove down our throats in the way of a theory based on removing God from the equation, which is exactly what evolutionism truly is - a theory on origins that makes God no longer necessary.  O how weak mankind is in this age to accept such a theory and blend it in with Scripture in a sense of concession to error - and even an error devised to make religion seem obsolete!  How can one knowingly accept such a thing - especially when Holy Scripture is so clear on origins and the age of the earth through the genealogies.  Modern man is truly weak, ignorant and full of cowardice to let their once vibrant Christian traditions be usurped by the worship of man.  These are indeed sad times we are living through.


Concerning Magesterial teaching, a Catholic would be truly blind not to see that the Church has always held to Creationism and six literal Creation days.

561 – Pope Pelagius I writes a letter to King Childebert I in which he states: “For I confess that...Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man.”  The early Church always affirmed that man was formed from the earth, and not from an ape.

1215 – Lateran Council IV – “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.”  The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).

1860 – Council of Cologne – “Our first parents were formed immediately by God.  Therefore, we declare that…those...who…assert...man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”  The Church again affirms that man is not the product of an evolutionary process.  Man was formed “immediately.”

1870 – Vatican Council I issues an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema:  “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.”  Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation.  In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.”  This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts).  Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing.  Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process.  There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).

1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states:  “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation.  This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created.  Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day.  It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day.  There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years.  Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.


It is hard to deny the Fathers as well.  Below is just a sampling of their unanimous voice:

Irenaeus, (140-202): "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded... in six days created things were completed..” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days" (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "...but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days' formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world..." (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).

Hippolytus (160-235): "But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,' but of ‘one day,' in order that by saying ‘one,' he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week...On the first day God made what He made out of nothing." (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).

Hippolytus (160-235): "When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth'...Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, defies himself.” Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).

Theophilus (c. 185): "Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts...on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated" (Autolycus 2,12).

Theophilus (c. 185):  “God...made the existent out of the non-existent.” (Autolycus 2,4).

Theophilus (c. 185):  “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence.  Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside.  In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars.  For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.”  Theophilus, 2.15.

Theophilus (c. 185):  “...the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything.  And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth...The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.”  Theophilus, 3.25, 28.

Theophilus (c. 185):  “If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 and 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands or years as it was for Plato...and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods.  It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.” Theophilus, 3.29.

Origen (c. 200):  “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19.

Lactantius (250-317): "God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day...For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up...Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years...For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." ..And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years... (Institutes 7,14).

Victorinus (c. 280): "God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World).

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic." (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

Methodius (c. 311): “For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church.” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "In six days God made the world...The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God's hands" (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).

Epiphanius (315-403): "Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name." (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).

Basil (329-379):  “’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’  He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night.., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” [Hexameron 2, 8].

Basil (329-379): "Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night...If it therefore says ‘one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night" [Hexameron 2, 8].  Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s interpretation of Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary (PG 18, 705-707).

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): "Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text's objective. With God's help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass." (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).

Ambrose (340-397): "But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent." (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).

Ambrose (340-397): "In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning." (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).

Ambrose (340-397): "But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded." (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).

Chrysostom (344-407): "Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,' he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts'...so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings" (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Victorinus (c. 355-361): "The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men's labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. "On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night... (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343)."

Augustine (354-430):  “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been...And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and...thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know.  They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.”  Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.

This.

Theistic evolutionists are nothing but spineless cowards in my book.
Reply
#62
(05-09-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: This.

Theistic evolutionists are nothing but spineless cowards in my book.


This.
+1


Reply
#63
I don't know, this seems to be a question of free opinion as the decision of the PBC under St. Pius X cited earlier in the thread indicates (see post 26). Humani Generis also permits as an opinion the idea that the human body was formed from previous biological material. The other opinion is also permitted. I also don't think injurious namecalling from either side of a question in the realm of free opinion is consonant with the spirit of Catholic charity.

FWIW, here is what Ott says about the Fathers when it comes to this question (take into account that I did cut and paste these from a wiki article, but they are cited as pages 92 and 93 of Fundamentals):

Quote:"...as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no virtue in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists... Since the findings of reason and the supernatural knowledge of Faith go back to the same source, namely to God, there can never be a real contradiction between the certain discoveries of the profane sciences and the Word of God properly understood."[21]

"As the Sacred Writer had not the intention of representing with scientific accuracy the intrinsic constitution of things, and the sequence of the works of creation but of communicating knowledge in a popular way suitable to the idiom and to the pre-scientific development of his time, the account is not to be regarded or measured as if it were couched in language which is strictly scientific... The Biblical account of the duration and order of Creation is merely a literary clothing of the religious truth that the whole world was called into existence by the creative word of God. The Sacred Writer utilized for this purpose the pre-scientific picture of the world existing at the time. The numeral six of the days of Creation is to be understood as an anthropomorphism. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis -- opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest."[22]
Reply
#64
1. How come none of those who believe in a literal six 24-hr day creation has explained how to reconcile Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?  First I'd recommend re-reading these two chapters, then tell me how they are to be understood together.

2. There are magisterial statements about God creating all things ex nihilo, of course.  But did God directly create my pc's monitor ex nihilo?  Of course not ... it was created in a factory designed by men.  Everything it was made from was ultimately created by God, and everything and everyone that participated in making it was also created ex nihilo, ultimately.  But that doesn't mean there can't be change.  To me it seems like every single post here that condemns any view outside of six 24-hr day creation using these statements, if interpreting the magisterium this way, falls into the severe problem of condemning belief in all change.  I must now believe that God created me as it is ex nihilo, instead of believing he created me as I am from younger forms, starting with an embryo!?
Reply
#65
My two points above are trying to emphasize this: there is good reason to understand Genesis apart from six 24-days of Creation of all things as they are now, from Scripture itself and from logic.

Criticizing theistic evolution is somewhat of a tangent -- the attraction of evolution as a good theory is what leads many to consider something outside of six 24-hr days of Creation, but that's not the only difficulty at all.

It's the two points right above that I want to see addressed, and if they are addressed well, I would reconsider my view.  I am not wedded to believing in evolution, I just think it's a good and useful theory despite flaws and despite much we don't understand (not to mention the problem of horrors like Richard Dawkins who promote evil forms of it).
Reply
#66
(05-09-2011, 03:10 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: This.

Theistic evolutionists are nothing but spineless cowards in my book.


This.
+1

Do I understand correctly that the two of you wish to call me a spineless coward?
Reply
#67
(05-09-2011, 04:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 03:10 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: This.

Theistic evolutionists are nothing but spineless cowards in my book.


This.
+1

Do I understand correctly that the two of you wish to call me a spineless coward?

And me and the other 39 FE's who checked no?
Reply
#68
(05-09-2011, 04:28 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 04:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 03:10 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 03:06 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: This.

Theistic evolutionists are nothing but spineless cowards in my book.


This.
+1

Do I understand correctly that the two of you wish to call me a spineless coward?

And me and the other 39 FE's who checked no?

Nic Gave a pretty good analysis and sampled many of the Church Fathers writings and teachings showing how "theistic evolution" is not taught by the church whatsoever.
Reply
#69
- removed (duplicate post)
Reply
#70
(05-09-2011, 04:34 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 04:28 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 04:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: Do I understand correctly that the two of you wish to call me a spineless coward?

And me and the other 39 FE's who checked no?

Nic Gave a pretty good analysis and sampled many of the Church Fathers writings and teachings showing how "theistic evolution" is not taught by the church whatsoever.

I can understand that you might think we are mistaken.  After all, I think that you are mistaken. But I see no reason to attribute mistakes to dishonourable motives.  Why do you rule out honest mistakes?

I am disappointed.  I should have liked to think that it was obvious that I am not a spineless coward.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)